You're a riot, buddy. "Long-term thinkers." Hahaha. Many long-term thinkers are leaders, but leaders are rarely long-term thinkers. At least at the high levels. It is those who secure their own interests who rise to high levels of power. Rarely, they are long-term thinkers (Lincoln, maybe the Roosevelts, maybe JFK, maybe Obama, definitely not Bush), but they are always selfish (just look at the person lives of these people and tell me they had integrity).

I'd say Lincoln and JFK were the only ones who really even tried to do their jobs, and they both got killed for it. (Sadly, even Jefferson ended up being corrupt when he took office.)

But you just said "people" are short sighted, which is why they need government. Now you're telling me some of them aren't?

So only *some* people "need" government. And, I suppose, you've got a great way to determine which ones are in which category? And which government is "right" for them?

And a reliable way of only letting the "good" people take the reigns, right?

Yes, clearly, the ACists here are the wacko yootopians.

I don't vote. Referees who are selected by someone else are imposed upon me.

Actually, we haven't. But even if we had, you still need to explain why I need to accept the referees that someone else selects rather than pick my own.

Government DOES have the majority of power, which is EXACTLY why people WANT to "buy it off".


No, this is wrong. It's a strawman. Those who oppose government do not oppose referees. In fact, many are huge proponents of law, order, peaceful dispute arbitration, etc. You are the one mixing ideas - specifically, the idea of opposing mandatory, monopoly referees with opposing referees in general.


Again, let's say that referees are inevitable.

You STILL have not explained why I should be compelled to accept referees that someone else imposes.

Ok,

I propose we have a government that has so much power, that it cannot be influenced by any business owners.

Kinda like cops in Toronto cannot get bribed. Cops in Russia can get bribed. That's why cops in Russia are corrupt and cops in Toronto do their job well, because the money I can offer as a bribe is insignificant to the money the cop is getting, and more importantly, the feelings he has toward doing his duty and making the city a safe place.


I suggest we have people in power who live simple lives. They can get more than an average citizen, so maybe a BMW or a Mercedes. And he can have a house that's slightly nicer, but that's it.

He cannot, by law, have any possessions exceeding a set amount of money. This goes for all government officials and for all citizens as well.


This will result in

1. Putting in effort for non-selfish reasons such as helping your community

2. Remove corruption

3. Slowly teach people the values of friendship, love and affection that have been forgotten in the name of making money.


This will result in

1. Free educatoin

2. Free health care

3. Free a lot of things we currently have to pay for


It'll also result in having far fewer useless things such as iPods, TVs and cars.

TV commercials will be banned because they're manipulative and capitalism based. They'll be replaced with educational material.


In simpler terms - we'll put a cap on money and that'll remove the ambition for greed. People are going to strive for status among community. This'll create closer community ties and more effective communication among all citizens.

Oh, did I mention this'll result in far shorter work hours since we'll be rid of so much money related nonsense paperwork? People are going to get paid set amounts and receive rewards in terms of RECOGNITION, like an Astronaut. There will be no monetary recognition because money will not be important.

This is so LOL. Steroids were a "problem" when only amateurs competed in the olympics. Competiton drives this behavior, not capitalism. People want to win.

False dichotomy.

Of course, we can turn this one around and observe that "randome peopel fighting out between them to see who gets power is EXACTLY what we have NOW under US-style statism.

And it is a total trainwreck.

And this is all under statism.

Wait, did you just say that giving government MORE power is going to improve things? People would be LESS inclined to go to extremes to get into power if there were MORE at stake?

If anyone here is obsessed with money, it's you.

Some games need referees. That doesn't imply that all games need referees. You are the one arguing for absolute authority, you are the one with the onus to prove that all people need to be governed (not just some).


Correlation doesn't imply causation, in other words. And just because all the successful nations now are capitalist, doesn't mean that we can't explore other options in the future. You're right - tell that to kudzu and Hobby, please.

Capitalism isn't a value system, it's a political system.

Yup, government's nasty. Almost as bad as the current government-supported corporatism, but at least a CEO is accountable to his customers and/or shareholders.

Sure, if you come up with a government to make that happen, I may end up supporting it. If you want a real dedicated focus on people, look at anarcho-syndicalism. I don't think it's viable, but it seems right up your alley.

Um, competition "forced" people into steroids. Competition probably can't be eliminated, certainly government has shown no indication of being able to get rid of it (even the great monarchs who wanted to quash all competition have failed rather miserably, and their power was almost absolute).

That would certainly result in a total trainwreck. Luckily, nobody in this thread is dumb enough to suggest that.

You think government can make that happen? How, outlaw selfishness? I think they already tried that.

Okay, so Stalin, Mussolini, Vlad Tepes - these are your heroes?

AC is about money now? I didn't get the memo.

pvn,

I have a solution for you:

Since you do not want to accept what your community offers. Go live in a cave. I see it solving all of your selfish concerns.

You won't need to accept referees because you won't be around people. If you want to be around people, you either lead the pack or you follow.

If you do not lead, you follow. Either that or you go live in a cave and there's no problem.


Your question kinda pisses me off because it's incredibly selfish. Why do I have to do what everyone else wants? Why don't they all do what I WANT? What do you want me to say to that? Other than grow up and stop being a selfish brat? I dunno... Sorry.

Well, I would start by making sure everyone has their needs met - food and housing and basic healthcare. Then I would make sure that people have unrestricted civil liberties.

After that, I would see how conditions are and make further decisions on that basis.

However, I don't think I'm especially qualified to make those decisions.

Either that or an equilibrium, or one of the more creative hypothetical solutions that have been thought up. Establishing a model requires making some assumption about power, but in no case is some absolute ruler necessitated. In nature, there are plenty of examples where power is held in equilibrium, rather than wielded by a crude dictator or self-interested parliament.

Let's make sure you mean exactly what you say. After all, no anarchist believes in "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder." An anarchist is someone who believes in "a theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."

So, using the proper definition of anarchy, you really think Zimbabwe is closest to that ideal?

Wow, so his attempt at an iron-fisted government didn't end up being stable? Do tell.

This has been tried before. Other than Julius Caesar and Alexander, everyone who has tried it is now regarded as a villain. Some of them may have had good intentions, but it has always ended in disaster.

Cops in Toronto have limited power. Canada takes checks and balances relatively seriously. This is a flawed analogy since you're arguing for absolute power. Certainly I agree that law enforcement should get higher salaries.

Okay, this is more or less how Stalin got started. The communists anyhow, and certainly many of the Bolsheviks. Maybe you're a Trotskyist. Well, I wouldn't mind some experiments with Trotskyism, though I think it's silly and unrealistic. A criticism of Trotskyism is beyond this thread, however.

More or less communism. Or maybe extreme socialism, all very semantic. I think this necessitates the abolition of private property, but again I'm not going into a detailed critique. I'm not opposed to experiments involving "true" socialism, or Trotskyism, or anarcho-syndicalism, or any of the other forms of the idea you're espousing.

However, you do seem to be opposed to experiments in anarchism, that's a pretty double standard you have their. Especially since the anarcho-syndicalists have so much in common with you - are you really so opposed to an AS experiment?

Also, you haven't explained how to get from here to there. Give the current government more power?

madnak I am not well versed in politics or it's theory. I am just telling you what I think is going to work and I am open to being wrong about a lot of this.

I don't know enough history to really say who has implemented what I'm suggesting or it would even work. I guess the closest thing to what I'm suggesting is communism.

When I read the wiki on it, it's boring and vague, as is most politics I find, hence I have a hard time ever educating myself on it.


I just see government workers regarded same as someone who makes bread in the morning. I appreciate the store clerk the same I appreciate a politician, both are doing relevant duty.

When I say government people are going to have a lot of power, they'll have a lot of power over things that affect the community - they will not have any power over what benefits them directly, or anyone directly in particular.

A government official will not be able to get superior education for his/her child because he/she only decides what is best for the state, not for one particular individual.


I just oppose the classes I suppose. It's always the rich against the poor. I'd like to see everyone regarded with same humanity and love because that's what human nature, I believe is about in the end. I'd like to see people regard a poor person same they would a rich person - because neither can help their selfish interests. You see what I'm saying?

There's so much judgement and hate going on because having money is a huge advantage. Let's level that. Yes we will lose a lot of what we currently have, but we'll gain so much more as a result.

We'll gain community, while losing selfish possessions.


p.s. Stalin is regarded a hero in places that actually know who and what he did. It is only USA propaganda that is still busy, vilifying Stalin. Ask the Russian people who've lived during those times and see what they say. You'll be very surprised.

Damn interesting Wiki article. Also makes me think that all the back and forth here is all ending up in the same place, kinda like those 4:00 a.m. philosophy wank-a-thons back in college.

Am I misunderstanding something here, or does this movement have some pretty severe counter-ideology to AC? Are there any cooperative proponents of such?

This is the typical response. Ostracise those who object. It's not enough to ignore the possibility that people can work together on their own, we must go further than that and ISOLATE the dissenters, not just from the "pack" but from each other.

Again, I never stated an objection to the idea of referees in general. Yet you feel the need to repeat this falsehood.

The fact that I may not want to work with YOU doesn't indicate that I don't want to work with ANYONE. You're pushing exile here as a form of punishment for daring to desire something different.

It's pathological.

Are you serious? This is exactly the opposite of what's going on here. I'm not seeking to make ANYONE do what "I want". You, on the other hand, are explicitly saying "play along with our plan or go live in a cave". You are the one imposing ultimatums and throwing a tantrum when someone has the temerity to dissent.

Men are not 100% animals, and your example of nature doesn't exactly hold up here. Animals don't want non-essential things like gold and ipods and vacation homes and designer clothes etc. etc. Human beings do. So, while it may be theoretically possible for such a system to work if it was an equilibrium, it is not realistically possible because of human nature. People want more things than just what they need to survive, and that would be the downfall to your system...unless their is some outside party who enforces equality.

The definition of anarchy from Merriam Webster:

1 a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a: absence or denial of any authority or established order b: absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker

So...anarchy applies to what I am saying in all but one instance, namely 1c. Are you still going to continue to imply that I don't know what anarchy is? And you decided that the proper definition is ONLY the one you subscribe to? Come on now..that's just stupid. Yes, the word anarchy applies to Zimbabwe.

Alex, you sometimes come up with some intelligent and prescient things. You've made some very perceptive posts.

I don't think this is one of those times.

The Russian people who are doing all that Stalin worship have the very real advantage of being alive, unlike the millions Stalin and his regime had slaughtered. I doubt they would share that opinion.

Ask the Cubans in Miami, they'll speak of the greatness of Batista, while those still in Cuba (not all, but a lot) will tell you how great Castro is.

I have a friend whose parents are from the Ukraine, and they met in what my friend describes as "one of those Nazi recreational facilities".They came to the states in the fifties. And Hitler was no less vilified in their household than Stalin.

This is off-thread, but there are always some who will remember an oppressive regime fondly.

I think you are falling into the "because that's just how it's done" trap. Do you honestly think taking people's money by force, and then letting some bureaucracy decide how to spend it all, is the best/only way for people to get the services they want/need?

Imagine that as of tomorrow in your hometown, everyone no longer had to pay taxes. What would happen? Would all the schools, hospitals, parks, libraries, etc. all just shut down?