Communist-capitalist

[Queso]

iceland is so mysterious to me. the only thing i knew about that country is that greenland is icyer than iceland, and iceland is greener than greenland. and the names of their cities, well their language in general, is pretty extravagent.

[Biochemist]

I believe the longest extant gov't is actually Iceland's.

But isn't that because there are only 4 citizens?

[Fishteacher73]

True, and Bjork is touring all the time, so she's not even home.... ;)

[sanctus]

C1ay,

 

you seem to see anarchy as a bad thing. Why?

To me it is an utopy, but agood one like comunism. If you ask me what is the aim for the evolution of human societies I would answer you anarchy.

 

if I tell you what I understand by it I guess you might agree. The aim of a society is to get to the point where every member is conscient enough of all implications of his actions so that laws are not needed. You might say it is just an utopy, I agree and that's why I said the aim is anarchy.

 

And what I have to add is that I guess anrchy and comunism are two utopies that are very close.

[Qfwfq]

..where every member is conscient enough of all implications of his actions so that laws are not needed.

Unfortunately there will always be malicious people, ones who know the implications of their actions all too well. This is why large scale Communism fails. It isn't an evil, it's a utopia. ;)

[Fishteacher73]

Utopia= U (no) topia (place)

 

 

The historical basis of the Anarchist movement in the 1920's indicates that it was a heavily religious movement. The theory was that one did not need the laws of man because one had the laws of god.

 

In reality anarchy is even worse than capitalism. The biggest, meanest, richest raise to the top and there is no counter balance available to protect those that cannot protect themselves.

[Queso]

years ago i used to think i was an anarchist. what a stupid faze to go through. glad that's in my past.

[Qfwfq]

In reality anarchy is even worse than capitalism. The biggest, meanest, richest raise to the top and there is no counter balance available to protect those that cannot protect themselves.

In reality, yes. According to the ideal it shouldn't be each protecting themself it should be everybody protecting everybody.

 

In theory it shouldn't be a lack of rules but everybody enforcing the rules, these rules should be what (almost) everybody percieves as right.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I read through some of the posts and figure I can easily make it even more confusing without hardly trying at all.

 

The issue, in my mind at least, revolves around what responsibilities are given to the government and which need to be assumed by the individual.

 

In a communist state, all responsibility rests with the government.

 

In a capitalist state (which does not exist), all responsibility rests with the individual.

 

The dark side of either type requires the recognition of the fact that some people want power over other people. When insanity no longer exists, then we wont have this problem. But some people are nuts, so, society must find a way to stop them from having an effect on the lives of others. Hence, the need for making and enforcing rules on human conduct.

 

I feel that in a communist state the loonies thrive and sanity suffers. A person cannot determine their own destiny so those who want to be left alone are s.o.l. Life becomes quite gray. Choice goes away and all that is left is force and the threat of violence. And the crap floats to the top.

 

The failure of the United States today, which I believe will eventually lead to our downfall, is that we teach our children that the most important thing is the right to vote. It isn't. The most important thing is to search for the truth and the only tool for that is our reason. When logic, reason, and truth become words associated with value and once again make it back into the common mans vocabulary, then and only then will the future look bright.

[sanctus]

Qfwfq and fishteacher what makes you have such a bad view on humans? Why should there always be malicious ones? Is there a theorem that states that if it has always been it has always to be so?

 

I agree the anrchy I wrote about is an utopy, but it is possible to get closer and closer to that in the following millenaries

[sanctus]

In theory it shouldn't be a lack of rules but everybody enforcing the rules, these rules should be what (almost) everybody percieves as right.

 

No, I think it is more that the rules aren't needed to be enforced as everyone perceives them. If they are enforced then it is a democracy (cf. our police-system).

[C1ay]

you seem to see anarchy as a bad thing. Why?

 

Anarchy is political disorder and confusion, the absense of political authority. How would that be a good thing? As long as there are those with no respect for the rights of others there will be a need for political authority.

[sanctus]

C1ay read what I wrote about anarchy here and then you will see why I don't see the absence of political authority as bad.

[Qfwfq]

Who sez anarchy is political disorder and confusion, C1ay? It is what I posted this morning, everybody enforcing the "rules", or what everybody percieves as right.

 

No, I think it is more that the rules aren't needed to be enforced as everyone perceives them. If they are enforced then it is a democracy (cf. our police-system).

There will always be the odd ones out. Police is one of the differences between anarchy and the most pure, direct democracy. Another is that in anarchy there would be no institution for the three powers or anything, not even a general assembly. No collective decisions at all, each member should simply have good judgement. Very far fetched. I meant enforced by everybody, not by an ad hoc institution.

 

Once I was talking to a guy I knew, who is a fanatic of anarchy and the social centres of the Leoncavallo group that are also mixed with the no-global movement. I'm talking of a guy who is a close friend of Luca Casarini, if you've heard the name. Anyway I was trying to point out that, if it wasn't for certain police violence against many demonstrations, they wouldn't need to be so viscerally against the cops. He got agitated and said they aimed for a society in which there's no need for police. The idea is that if others are vigilant they will prevail.

 

There are working examples in not-too-large communities. It very much depends on mentality. Indifference is the best friend of crime. If, otoh, you do have a police force but nobody pays attention when they see something wrong, fat lot of good to have the police.

[Biochemist]

...The dark side of either type requires the recognition of the fact that some people want power over other people....The failure of the United States today, which I believe will eventually lead to our downfall, is that we teach our children that the most important thing is the right to vote. It isn't. The most important thing is to search for the truth and the only tool for that is our reason.

Interesting thought. I really don't think that parents actually teach their kids that the "right to vote" is paramount, but we do tend to suggest that democracy/capitalism is inherently good, which I think still supports your point.

 

I am a pretty strong advocate for democracy and capitalism, although I recognize the legion of problems associated with supporting the bottom economic decile of the population that does not perform well in the system. That means that I (and, really, most of us die-hard capitalists) support socialistic interventions for the weak performers. The stress in US politics is really not whether to do this, but how far up the ladder (and by what mechanism) do we intervene.

 

In my case, I try to teach my kids to engage their peers in thoughtful communication. That would include engaging in discussion on politics, economics, religion, personal behavior, etc. Some of that impacts their voting decisions. I do encourage my kids to vote (2 are old enough) but that is a downstream decision.

[C1ay]

C1ay read what I wrote about anarchy here and then you will see why I don't see the absence of political authority as bad.

 

Bad link. Perhaps you meant this one. Regarding that post, it's not that there has to be malicious ones, just that there are. Observe for instance, some people think they are simply entitled to the possesions of another. They are otherwise known as thieves. What should be done with these poeple in an anarchist society? Should the victim be free to deal with them as he/she pleases?

[C1ay]

Who sez anarchy is political disorder and confusion, C1ay

 

 

Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster. I realize that it is really just a lack of government but that is something that becomes disorder and confusion with large groups of people.