Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

Poll

What do you think is the "best" form of Government?

Democracy59%59% - 22
Oligarchy0%0% - 0
Comminist state18%18% - 7
Dictatorship8%8% - 3
Monarchy2%2% - 1
Sochialism10%10% - 4
Total: 37
2005-12-13 09:34:27
SFCCDailey
Banned
+106|6933|USA
I think Thomas Jefferson said it best:

"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; not enlightened enough to exercise their control with wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion. Enlighten the people generally and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day." -- Thomas Jefferson
2005-12-13 09:34:46
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6975|MA, USA

Nehil wrote:

...We can afford it becuse we have some of the highest taxes in the world. In 1992 a more right oriented party won, after that 4 years of economic crisis followed. They lower the taxes. Strange huh?
Seems to be a fairly straightforward principle at work here, doesn't there?  You can't reduce taxes without reducing expenditure.  Maybe they should try reducing both at the same time, and see how that works out.  Personally I think it is horrendous that any government (or any other group of people) thinks they have a right to the fruit of your labors.  But it sounds like it works for you...if you endure it voluntarily, enjoy.

Nehil wrote:

...And is it our fault your country is so fucking scared that you spend so much on defense? If nobody had an army nobody could attack anyone right? I think the "biggest" army belongs to the USA right now...again, strange huh?
Now that is just silly.  1) Isn't Sweden a proponant of 'Armed Neutrality'?  Do you disagree with your country on that issue?  2)  The man who said that many nations enjoy the level of security they do because of the US's military was spot on.  I don't say this out of pride: The US does this merely to ensure security for it's own economic interests, and I personally HATE the fact that the blood of our soldiers is spilled to ensure security for the coffers of the wealthy.  Nevertheless, to deny the fact that the largest single guarantor of world stability is the US Military is to fool oneself.  3)  In terms of sheer manpower the Chinese army is the largest.

Nehil wrote:

Also the best government is the one who dosen't exist at all, like anarchy.
That is a tough sell, but I would agree that the government that governs best, governs least.

Someone else mentioned that a Constitutional Monarchy couldn't be a Democracy.  First we need to clarify our terms.  Most of us, when we speak about a Democracy, are talking about a Representative Democracy, and not the rule of the people directly (as in Ancient Greece), to which the term Democracy actually refers.  That's fine, as long as everybody understands what we mean by the term.  Now, nothing prevents a Constitutional Monarchy from being a Representative Democracy.  The UK springs to mind.  Let's face it, the Monarch may reign, but she hasn't ruled for quite a long time.

I think my own preference would be an Anarco-sydicalist commune. People take it in turns to be a sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs but by a two thirds majority in the case of....
:-)

Last edited by whittsend (2005-12-13 10:46:56)

2005-12-13 09:37:11
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6952

Nehil wrote:

Hmm I thought that my country has nearly had a streak of socialist rule for over 40 years...Guess I was wrong thanks for learning me a lesson. We can afford it becuse we have some of the highest taxes in the world. In 1992 a more right oriented party won, after that 4 years of economic crisis followed. They lower the taxes. Strange huh? And is it our fault your country is so fucking scared that you spend so much on defense?  I think the "biggest" army belongs to the USA right now...again, strange huh? Also the best government is the one who dosen't exist at all, like anarchy.
Did I not say "decades" ago? What was your country before that 40 year streak of socialism? Oh yeah, a free market capitalist economy.

If nobody had an army nobody could attack anyone right?
hahahaha that's rich :p

Yeah, it's the existence of militaries that causes nations to fight over territory, not human nature. You hit the nail right on the head.

I think the "biggest" army belongs to the USA right now.
You think wrong, China has the largest army in the world. China is also an oppressive nation that forces people to kill their own children and those that live often end up working for pennies to supply the rest of the world with crappy knick knacks.

Also the best government is the one who dosen't exist at all, like anarchy.
So you'd prefer a world with no law, no infrastructure, no economy, no defense, no medicine, no technology, no education, and no human advancement?
2005-12-13 09:39:21
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6952

CackNBallz wrote:

social safety nets.......lazy.
This is why socialism is bad for the human race. Redistribution of wealth encourages laziness. Forced redistribution of wealth is tantamount of tyranny.
2005-12-13 09:48:12
M1-Lightning
Jeepers Creepers
+136|6948|Peoria, Illinois

Nehil wrote:

I know you could, but if there ever would be a anarchy I think people wouldn't even do that. If you could shoot me without any punishment, would you? Why do you have to protect yourself from? Those crazy commies? Those fucking arabs? Well I promise you that I would never hurt you, so you can rule me out.
Much of Africa is an "anarchy". When there is no community government established to protect the people you get a country run by warlords. It's poverish and deadly. America's poorest citizens have a better life than the average African.

Truly, anarchy cannot exist. It's human nature to assemble.
2005-12-13 10:04:48
Nehil
Member
+3|6949|South Sweden (NOT SWITZERLAND)

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Words
I'm not really sure about how it was like over 40 yers ago in Sweden. But if nobody had an army wouldn't it be for the better? Or would it not be even better if nobody could use an army? Also I agree about China, and it might have a larger army than the US but the US has the best. No I want some of those things that you did mention, you don't really seem to know what anarchy would be like, I don't really know how to explain simple, maybe becuse it can't. Read about it sometime, but anarchy does not mean going back to the stone age.

Also "whittsend" wrote some good points, I'll try to reply ASAP.
2005-12-13 10:14:16
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6952

Nehil wrote:

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Words
I'm not really sure about how it was like over 40 yers ago in Sweden. But if nobody had an army wouldn't it be for the better? Or would it not be even better if nobody could use an army? Also I agree about China, and it might have a larger army than the US but the US has the best. No I want some of those things that you did mention, you don't really seem to know what anarchy would be like, I don't really know how to explain simple, maybe becuse it can't. Read about it sometime, but anarchy does not mean going back to the stone age.

Also "whittsend" wrote some good points, I'll try to reply ASAP.
It's your country, you don't know your own history? :p

How do you figure things would be better if no country had a military? The result of that would be disorganized conflicts where more innocent civilians would die. Do you think that people only fight over territory because they have militaries? Do you think violence only exists because militaries exist? I don't know where you get this idea but the bottom line is that militaries were created because of the natural human state of violent territorial aquisition. To think that war would end if no one had access to organized military forces (which are comprised of nothing more than trained human beings, if you've forgotten) is silly.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchy

   1.  Absence of any form of political authority.
   2. Political disorder and confusion.
   3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.


n : a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government) [syn: lawlessness]


That's anarchy. If you have some other definition of it then by all means please educate me. The concept of anarchy doesn't mean going back to the stone age but in practice that is exactly where it would lead. Without organization in even the slightest degree society cannot function. It's human instinct to form governments and to be organized, it's unavoidable. Anarchy would lead to a lack of economy which leads to a lack of everything we currently enjoy. Without government there is no organized economy and without economy there is no technology, no advancement, no true education, no research, no development, no distance communication, nothing that has led us to where we are today.

Anarchy would mean the destruction of the human race, plain and simple.
2005-12-13 13:04:20
Nehil
Member
+3|6949|South Sweden (NOT SWITZERLAND)
Well first, I'm actually not a native swede, my parents came to Sweden during the sixties tho I was born here. So I have to study polish history also you see and that's quite alot. Becuse your country has only existed for like 300 years . And also you can call me silly or dumb but I belive military is not needed today, remove all the guns I say!

And about your three points on anarchy, 1 and 2 collide. And by my defenition what you have written dosen't count as anarchy, far from it. Anarchy would lead to certain things as: no money, no law (THAT DOESN'T MEAN NO ORDER), no government, no guns, no opression, no borders and no "economy". HUH NO ECONOMY you say, well if you don't have money you don't need any. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." is a good idea and it would work, if we all worked hard for it.

If this dosen't count as anarchy for you lets call it something else...maybe nihilism?...Oh damn.
2005-12-13 13:31:05
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6952

Nehil wrote:

Well first, I'm actually not a native swede, my parents came to Sweden during the sixties tho I was born here. So I have to study polish history also you see and that's quite alot. Becuse your country has only existed for like 300 years . And also you can call me silly or dumb but I belive military is not needed today, remove all the guns I say!

And about your three points on anarchy, 1 and 2 collide. And by my defenition what you have written dosen't count as anarchy, far from it. Anarchy would lead to certain things as: no money, no law (THAT DOESN'T MEAN NO ORDER), no government, no guns, no opression, no borders and no "economy". HUH NO ECONOMY you say, well if you don't have money you don't need any. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." is a good idea and it would work, if we all worked hard for it.

If this dosen't count as anarchy for you lets call it something else...maybe nihilism?...Oh damn.
Yes, my country has only been around for a couple hundred years but amazingly enough it's been under the same system of government longer than almost any nation today.

I won't say you're dumb but I do think you're blindingly optimistic about human nature if you think militaries are not necessary these days.

The first two definitions do not collide but I hope you realize that words can have more than one definition. By "your" definition? If I define spark plugs as dried up leaves to make tea from, does that make my definition correct? Your definition of anarchy doesn't really mean anything unless it coincides with the definition of anarchy set forth by the english language. Now unless the word "anarchy" means something completely different in swedish I doubt you can really alter the definition from what I posted.

Once again you're failing to take human nature into account. What is the point of working toward something if there are no benefits? How would one feed one's family? How would people be expected to live and help advance society if there were zero tangible rewards? Maybe you'd be happy living like that but let me tell you that you are in a very, very, very small minority because that concept is contradictory to human nature.

Anarchy and nihilism are not the same thing. Anarchy is a lack of coherent organization and structure in society while nihilism is just a fancy of saying "I'm too lazy to give a fuck about anyone but myself".

Anarchy would mean the end of human advancement and subsequently the likely end of human dominance on earth.
2005-12-13 13:33:26
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6952
one more thing: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

That idea is pretty abhorrent to me. What if my abilities offer far greater than what I need? I get shafted because I'm able to work harder yet since I don't need as much, my hard work goes to waste. Now what if you need more than I do but are not nearly as capable of producing as I am? Why should my hard work go toward sustaining you and others who can't provide as much as they need?
2005-12-13 13:34:31
Jeckelcopy
Ach du Sheisse!!!!
+2|6977

FeloniousMonk wrote:

CackNBallz wrote:

social safety nets.......lazy.
This is why socialism is bad for the human race. Redistribution of wealth encourages laziness. Forced redistribution of wealth is tantamount of tyranny.
Then any government that redistributes money is crap, yet if you don't redistribute money, then the people will suffer and die unless the government is everyones life-support system...

Then no government is the best, all governments are weak, unless there is one almighty government that shall please everyone, is non-threatening, economicaly stable, and is self sufficient (like say countires in North America), everything else is crap....

But then, to start over, you must think:  Do you want a ruling government that has different sub-governments under one main government, a government that rules all, or no government (as in anarchy)...
2005-12-13 13:46:29
Jeckelcopy
Ach du Sheisse!!!!
+2|6977

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Yes, my country has only been around for a couple hundred years but amazingly enough it's been under the same system of government longer than almost any nation today.
That is because the US has been pushing others to adopt a democracy, and has done so with force (occationaly)

Ex:  The US's westward expantion - after the Louisiana purchase from Nepoleon Bonepart (Sp?), the US began to explore and move west from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean...  The US met opposition by Native Americans.  Some US citizens were trying to convert the Natives from their past beliefs to a form of Christianity...  The Natives didn't like... The US then sent the Army there to "restore order"...  The US put them [Natives] into reservations (much like today's POW camps, but more room)  The Natives hated it, and they rebelled...
The reason I bring this up is because that is what happens today...  That (^) is called "Manifest Destiny", which is people belive it is their duty (sometimes from their god) to move and cleanse the land to their liking... That, I belive, is still happening today with the US, like say in Iraq...
2005-12-13 13:54:08
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6952

Jeckelcopy wrote:

Then any government that redistributes money is crap, yet if you don't redistribute money, then the people will suffer and die unless the government is everyones life-support system...
Government should be no one's life support system. Fuck welfare and food stamps, charity is supposed to be the willing donation to help your fellow man. I'd gladly give money to charity if it wasn't already taken from me to support people that are simply too lazy to work.


Then no government is the best, all governments are weak, unless there is one almighty government that shall please everyone, is non-threatening, economicaly stable, and is self sufficient (like say countires in North America), everything else is crap....

But then, to start over, you must think:  Do you want a ruling government that has different sub-governments under one main government, a government that rules all, or no government (as in anarchy)...
There is no such thing as the perfect government because different people have different views. There are ideal concepts of government but none in practice is ever as good as the idea. Some, like communism, are so far worse than the already displeasurable ideal that the mere act of attempting them winds up stripping people of freedom.

I prefer as little government as possible but some government is required to maintain order, defend citizens, and ensure that certain rights are protected and not infringed upon by local municipalities.
2005-12-13 13:54:34
Lib-Sl@yer
Member
+32|6930|Wherever the F**k i feel like

Nehil wrote:

Uhhh, I'd just like to point out that a communist state can be a democracy and so can a socialistic. Also of the options I think that a socialistic would be the best, we have one in my country and I think it's good. Also the best form of government is the one that doesn't exist.
EEE wrong Communism- a form of goverment in which the economy is based on a socialist system, and the GOVERMENT IS A DICTATORSHIP. Know your goverments.
2005-12-13 14:00:02
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6952

Jeckelcopy wrote:

That is because the US has been pushing others to adopt a democracy, and has done so with force (occationaly)
Ah, so you would prefer that the UK remained a disgusting monarchal empire, that the russians remained under the iron curtain, and that the rest of europe be engulfed in dictatorships by various tyrants? So far democracy, the idea that the people should be in charge, has been the best for all involved.


Ex:  The US's westward expantion - after the Louisiana purchase from Nepoleon Bonepart (Sp?), the US began to explore and move west from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean...  The US met opposition by Native Americans.  Some US citizens were trying to convert the Natives from their past beliefs to a form of Christianity...  The Natives didn't like... The US then sent the Army there to "restore order"...  The US put them [Natives] into reservations (much like today's POW camps, but more room)  The Natives hated it, and they rebelled...
The reason I bring this up is because that is what happens today...  That (^) is called "Manifest Destiny", which is people belive it is their duty (sometimes from their god) to move and cleanse the land to their liking... That, I belive, is still happening today with the US, like say in Iraq...
Nope, that was about religious atrocities. What happened to the natives is a horrible point in american history and should always be remembered, but it is most certainly not what's happening in Iraq. The Iraqi people were under the oppression of a brutal maniacal sociopath and they are now free to choose their own path in life. You think the brutal slaughter of the native people of this land is the same as giving countless iraqis the ability to vote in the elections currently going on? These people are being allowed to chose their leader, unlike in a dictatorship like Saddam's where they would've been murdered for simply questioning his authority.

People bitch and moan and complain about what America is doing in the middle east but have any of you ever been there and actually talked to the Iraqis? Does anyone here know what it was like to live under that regime and the difference in the level of freedom they now have?
2005-12-13 14:01:50
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6975|MA, USA

Nehil wrote:

...Becuse your country has only existed for like 300 years
Actually, our STATE has only existed for 218 years, and as such IS one of the oldest in the world.  Our separate culture and history dates back to the 16th Century, when North America began to be colonized.  Prior to that, your history is our history.

Nehil wrote:

And also you can call me silly or dumb but I belive military is not needed today, remove all the guns I say!
I won't call you dumb, but I do think it is silly.  If you are right, states can continue to have armies that never get used, and everyone is happy.  If you are wrong, the states that disarm get flattened with no chance of defending themselves.  The potential consequences of disarmament ensure that nobody ever will, therefore you are proposing a self defeating ideal.

Nehil wrote:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." is a good idea and it would work, if we all worked hard for it.
This is essentially Communism.  I don't want to work hard for it.  It therefore fails unless you FORCE me to participate...which in the end is the totalitarian form of Communism we all know and loathe.  How about "From each to himself, according to his ability"?  That is more in accordance with human nature.  If you fail, it's your own fault.

Jeckelcopy wrote:

...yet if you don't redistribute money, then the people will suffer and die unless the government is everyones life-support system...
I don't accept the premise, and I don't think you have evidence to support it.


jeckelcopy wrote:

That is because the US has been pushing others to adopt a democracy, and has done so with force (occationaly)
Nonsequitur.  This has nothing to do with the age of the US Government.

Last edited by whittsend (2005-12-13 14:15:09)

2005-12-13 14:15:20
SodaBob
Member
+-1|7060|Indiana, US

Tyferra wrote:

Every form of government benefits the already well off.
Communism was designed to help the working class, but never did. Even Capitalism, although there is generally less of a difference between working and middle/upper classes still benefits the wealthy!
More accurately, you claim that every economic system favors the wealthy.  And yes, wealth generally begets wealth.  However, only pure capitalism, coupled with a democratic republican system of government, helps guarantee an equal oportunity for the poor to succeed and become wealthy themselves.  On the other hand, socialism, monarchy, despotism, and communism and their ilk all stifle individual acheivement, and therefore make it much more difficult, if not impossible, for the poor to better themselves or their community.  Remember, Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey started with nothing.  Anyone can still make it in America, despite our slow slide toward socialism...

Tyferra wrote:

Edit: And Casto's pretty good as far as dictators go really.
That's like saying that Tookie Williams was a pretty good guy, you know, for having been a murderous thug.
2005-12-13 14:21:21
SodaBob
Member
+-1|7060|Indiana, US

ubersoldat...dos sniper wrote:

no gov would be interesting.
...and impossible, given human nature.  If we could push a button, and create pure anarchy (which, unlike the popular conception, does not mean "chaos", it merely means "no government"), then the biggest, baddest, smartest, most ambitious, etc. would soon take over and we'd be in the same mess.

I believe that we should strive for the closest thing to anarchy as possible, while still maintaining a good working representative government that can protect the rights of the few from the many as well as the rights of the many from the few...
2005-12-13 14:38:43
SodaBob
Member
+-1|7060|Indiana, US

CackNBallz wrote:

Canada is under a social-democracy and I like it that way.  The government helps out the people with various services like universal healthcare, free education up until highschool, subsidizes more than half of a student's tuition for post-secondary education. 

It seems to be working well enough.  However, the Conservatives in the country, really the western part of the country (equivalent to the "Heartland" and red states for the USA) want it to be more like America with private healthcare, corporations running more services, less social safety nets.  All these things in the end will hurt the middle and lower class workers as well as the elderly, disabled and lazy.

I may vote for the Conservatives for this upcoming election just out of spite to show everyone that a country run by Conservatives is not a good thing for Canada.  Canada is well-known because of its liberal ideologies, social services and humanitarian aid.  I think that the Liberal Pary will win yet again, but it will be even more deadlocked than before since they will have less seats in Parliament.  So... I foresee yet another short-lived minority government that isn't going to do much because they don't have enough seats to enact anything.
Your universal healthcare looks great on paper.  However, it causes many problems and only works at all because of the United States.  For example, if the United States had similar universal healthcare as Canada, with fixed pricing for drugs, etc. all the drug companies would go out of business OR research and development would die off, because the fixed pricing would be too low to allow them to fund further research.  And guess who gets to pay for the difference in pricing between what the drug companies want to charge and what they can charge in Canada?  Me!!!  In other words, because you have universal healthcare in Canada (or Britain, or whatever), we citizens in the US pay even more for our medicines.  On the other hand, since Canada has universal healthcare, where doctors are paid whatever low amount the government wants to pay, and the U.S. does not, all your best doctors are coming here!  Why?  Because they can make a sh*tload more money here than they can in Canada.  This salary difference is made even worse given that, as I understand, any Canadian making over $100,000 gets hit with a 50% income tax - ouch - and they say that universal healthcare is "free".  Ha!!!  But even if you didn't have a brain drain into the U.S., why be an outstanding doctor, when you get paid the same as a mediocre doctor?  In short, socialism breeds mediocrity.

Unfortunately, even here in the US we're sliding toward universal, socialist healthcare, what with all the governmental meddling in the healthcare system and Hillary and her ilk continuing to back universal healthcare initiatives.  But even still, the US floats the rest of the world in terms of research and development in medicines and surgical procedures.  This is not to say that other countries don't have their own breakthroughs, as I know many breakthroughs have been made by individuals, groups and companies in many countries, but universal healthcare stifles innovation in medicines and techniques, simple as that.
2005-12-13 14:45:49
SodaBob
Member
+-1|7060|Indiana, US

whittsend wrote:

I think my own preference would be an Anarco-sydicalist commune. People take it in turns to be a sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs but by a two thirds majority in the case of....
:-)
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!  HELP, HELP, I'M BEING REPRESSED!
2005-12-13 14:49:39
SodaBob
Member
+-1|7060|Indiana, US

M1-Lightning wrote:

Nehil wrote:

I know you could, but if there ever would be a anarchy I think people wouldn't even do that. If you could shoot me without any punishment, would you? Why do you have to protect yourself from? Those crazy commies? Those fucking arabs? Well I promise you that I would never hurt you, so you can rule me out.
Much of Africa is an "anarchy". When there is no community government established to protect the people you get a country run by warlords. It's poverish and deadly. America's poorest citizens have a better life than the average African.

Truly, anarchy cannot exist. It's human nature to assemble.
Your last part is absolutely true, as is your statement about the poorest of Amerians vs the average African.

However, even a country run by warlords has a government - it is a feudalistic government, run by warlords

Heck, even the standard family unit is a "government".
2005-12-13 15:06:29
SodaBob
Member
+-1|7060|Indiana, US

Nehil wrote:

Well first, I'm actually not a native swede, my parents came to Sweden during the sixties tho I was born here. So I have to study polish history also you see and that's quite alot. Becuse your country has only existed for like 300 years . And also you can call me silly or dumb but I belive military is not needed today, remove all the guns I say!
As Tolkien in the Lord of the Rings so aptly said (through the character of Eowyn), "It needs but one foe to breed a war, not two, Master Warden, and those who have not swords can still die upon them."  In other words, even were the good people of this world to lay down their arms, there will always be wicked people among us that will take them up.  Tyranny exists because good people do not arm themselves against such evils.  And even if there were a button whereby guns, and even the knowledge to make them, could be eradicated from the world - people would still kill each other with swords, knives and clubs, and would soon enough re-invent or re-engineer the gun. 

Nehil wrote:

And about your three points on anarchy, 1 and 2 collide. And by my defenition what you have written dosen't count as anarchy, far from it. Anarchy would lead to certain things as: no money, no law (THAT DOESN'T MEAN NO ORDER), no government, no guns, no opression, no borders and no "economy". HUH NO ECONOMY you say, well if you don't have money you don't need any. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." is a good idea and it would work, if we all worked hard for it.

If this dosen't count as anarchy for you lets call it something else...maybe nihilism?...Oh damn.
Without a government, how would you propose to give "each according to his need"?  In other words, how would things that people need be redistributed from those that have the needed items and those that don't?  Whatever mechanism you come up with would be a form of government.

Also, what that quote ("ability and need") is talking about is communism/socialism, not anarchy.  In the utopian ideal of anarchy, there is no government and all are equal because there IS nothing to redistribute.  Somehow.  But we all know that, because of the way the world is built and the fact that there are limited resources that people desire to have, there will always be some people with more of something (food and/or other resources), and those who will do anything to get that something.  Which is why anarchy will never work.  Sad, but true.

Thus, a libertarian democratic repuplic, that rules as little as possible while protecting the life, liberty and property of its citizens, is the best government to have.

Bob.
2005-12-13 15:27:27
M1-Lightning
Jeepers Creepers
+136|6948|Peoria, Illinois
"libertarian democratic repuplic"

Sounds like a Thomas Jefferson government.
2005-12-13 15:31:14
Nehil
Member
+3|6949|South Sweden (NOT SWITZERLAND)
Whoa, a lot has been written and I don't have the time to anwser it all nor do I care enough but here are those things that I care most about:

First, I do know anarchy and nihilism aren't the same thing, I was trying to make a joke by naming my politically views from my nickname. If you still don't get it please comit suicide. And people often mention "human nature" as long as I'm not a freak I'm a part of it. I do belive deep down everyone is good. Yes even Walt Diseny.
2005-12-13 15:34:15
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6952

SodaBob wrote:

whittsend wrote:

I think my own preference would be an Anarco-sydicalist commune. People take it in turns to be a sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs but by a two thirds majority in the case of....
:-)
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!  HELP, HELP, I'M BEING REPRESSED!
hahahahaha that's one of my favorite scenes

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard