Page 3 of 7 <12345>Last »
Topic Options
#37159 - 03/30/10 11:08 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: ]
BloodRaven Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/12/09
Posts: 12
Loc: Tucson, AZ
If I had a choice on what type of government to set up I'd pick a compartmentalized meritocracy within a constitutional framework. For example, if person A wants become an economist he/she could take a test and if he/she proved to be knowledgeable, responsible and creative in the area of knowledge of the economy that person along with the other people who prove their worth would run the state economy. If person B who is a brain surgeon doesn't like the economy the way it is being run he doesn't get any vote or input , unless he is able to pass the same economy test person A took. sociologist and lawyers would come up with the laws. Teachers would set academic standards so on and so forth. There would be no need for politicians but there would be foreign diplomats to maintain foreign relations/declare war. If somebody becomes inadequate at a job they once were good at they are stripped of their titles and have to pass a new job test.

The constitution would just say that no law could be passed that infringe upon personal freedoms. Freedoms being described as actions that do not hurt others. So, responsible drug use, sodomy, gay marriage, porn, prostitution, what have you would all stay legal and be untouchable by the lawyers.

The system we have now is similar in a lot of ways. You go to school for a degree and get a job in that field. Here are the ways my system would differ:
* No president and senators
* You would only be able to vote in the area you are proficient at.
* Distribution of power would be based on ability rather than wealth and or connection( right now I believe we live in a democracy ruled by plutocracy and nepotism)
*Stratification
*Laws would be passed based solely on logic by professionals instead of on political gain.

Top
#37163 - 03/31/10 12:47 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: BloodRaven]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Just to clarify: You would have a constitution, but no legislative or executive branch or judiciary in the traditional sense?

It would seem that this constitution has a comprehensive bill of rights which takes into account contemporary issues.

It also features departments or bureaucracies of experts, who have autonomy and sole authority to impose policy in their area of expertise.

I am assuming that you will require departments or bureaucracies for all areas of the public service and the private economy and all of the stakeholders within the private economy?

I am not sure how you can co – ordinate policy and action between bureaucracies, particularly in times of war or natural disaster? Also how do you levy monies for the running of the bureaucracies and determine who gets what?

How is it possible to build a consensus on national issues?

There must be some sort of meeting of the top minds, from all of the departments, in some specified place?

The heads of department are elected by their respective members?

Top
#37164 - 03/31/10 01:26 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: ]
Adversary Offline
pledge


Registered: 02/19/10
Posts: 93
All of the systems in play now ARE anarchy. It is a constant struggle for power. We(people) are crooked, backstabbing traitors with our own interest(or the interest of the person whos ideas we steal because we are too stupid to come up with our own)at heart. It is the numbers and the science/strategy experts you can assemble to enforce or coerce to make YOUR way successful. Every system will fail in time. Their is no perfect government or lack therof. What you see around the world and in history is everyone trying their method. There really is no success. If you had every man for himself, as we did in the past, you would have people establishing their own tribe, culture, ku, state, country, gov't. Wether voted for or shoved up your ass against your will.
Top
#37167 - 03/31/10 02:20 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Adversary]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



There seems to be two issues here:

1. All systems are anarchic in nature and we are engaged in constant viciously fought out power struggles with each other.
2. All systems fail in time – no social arrangement or organisation standeth sure.

These two issues may be derived from Redbeard I think.

Judeo – Christian propaganda and natural rights democracy as far as I can see led to the western social contract, at least at the theoretical level.

I am becoming more and more convinced that the political and social struggles or outcomes in western societies, in the modern period, are or have always been played out, via some sort of dialectical process between the Redbeardian and the Judeo – Christian/Natural rights model.

This constant struggle between human reality as defined by Redbeard and traditional religious and philosophical ethics seems to determine humankind and their institutions at so many levels?

I don’t know if there is any value in the above, but would very much appreciate any comments by any other interested members, particularly Maw, Dr. Aquino and Jake.

Top
#37170 - 03/31/10 03:02 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1139
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
The eventual cost of an act or the severity of that cost has got nothing to do with your initial freedom at all. Considering the cost of an act as limiting to your freedom is comparable with complaining you got to do work to get your paycheck. So, if freedom is a given, there is only one that can limit your freedom and that is you. Nobody or nothing else can limit it. As such, government has no control over you unless you allow it to have.


You raise an excellent point. I think in this context what we're talking about is whether the consequences of our actions hinge upon the government or other forces. As I noted in my post before, I would want to live in a society where my financial success depended on my competence and diligence instead of my ideology.

In some cases, the type of government can enable or limit what a person is capable of. If I wanted to run a television show, our current system where citizens can sign up for local broadcasting would make it much easier than a country that monitors its airwaves and blocks signals they don't like. Yes, I'd still be free to make the attempt either way, but whether or not my efforts were futile would vary largely depending on the regime.

I'm very curious about your brand of fascism. I understand the idea of uniting people under a common banner and central authority. But fascism also usually entails socioeconomic control and censorship or suppression of opposition. I generally think that a market that is left alone naturally rewards what's valuable to people much better than any government interference could. I also feel that governments should not punish any form of consciousness or expression. Perhaps they should respond to allegations they consider false or misleading, but simply retaliating with punishment gives the impression that the government has something to hide.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#37172 - 03/31/10 04:24 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: ]
BloodRaven Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/12/09
Posts: 12
Loc: Tucson, AZ
"You would have a constitution, but no legislative or executive branch or judiciary in the traditional sense?"

Yes I would. The United States Constitution is mostly about the structure our government and the bill of rights is the first 10 amendments (about our rights). The Constitution in my world would just serve as a simple untouchable law of personal freedom and a simple governmental outline. NO amendments or alterations could be made to the original constitution. The lawyer faction in conjunction with other departments(depending on the situation) would be able to establish any laws or regulation they wanted to, to adapt to modern circumstances as long as it did not conflict with the original constitution.

One major criticism of my form of government is that it would be very hard or even impossible to maintain a free market system. Also, who would decide where all the tax monies go? Would the education department get more money than the defense department so on and so forth. The first part of the problem would be solved by a bastardization of Communism and Capitalism as weird as that sounds. Here's how it would work, the government would own all of the businesses. Everyone knows that Capitalism has a lot of good points though, such as competition. So, the government would have to form a Capitalistic frame work within itself. For example, these days if you want to buy some headphones you can buy them at best buy or radio shack etc. and then you can select what make of headphones you want. Your decision is based on price, reliability and performance. Without competition, price, reliably, performance and most importantly innovation would be staggered. The revenue department (which I will get to later) would fund Radio Shack, Best Buy and all the different headphone companies based upon how much people buy from them. So there would still be competition because the Bose people would still want to produce a quantity product because they want more funding then the Skull Candy company, but both would still be owned by the government. The revenue department would just give a lump sum to the Bose people based on their sales. The Bose people would be able to independently decide how that lump sum be spent. Skull Candy would still get money but in proportion with Bose it would be smaller.

The revenue department would distribute the wealth based on current needs. For example, if there is a war going on the revenue department would give more money to the defense department. In times of peace they may give more money to education or social services. The revenue department would not be able to decide what each department does with their money but only hand out a lump sum. How does each department distribute their funding then? It would be a system of direct democracy. So for example, say the education department gets 5 billion dollars for the year. Everyone in the education department would be able to directly vote how that money be spent. In each department their would be ranks based on ability and experience. Lets say ranks 1-10. A rank 1 would be minimum experience and knowledge while a 10 is the best of the best. Rank would be the deciding factor of pay and how many votes you get. So lets say the education department is voting on how much money will be spent on new books for the year, rank 10 gets 10 votes rank 1 gets 1 vote. The most potentially powerful departments in my government would be the revenue department, the labor department and lawyer department. There would have to be a form of checks and balances between these 3 departments to keep them in line. For example, the revenue departments funding to itself would have to be capped off at a certain level.

Top
#37175 - 03/31/10 06:29 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: BloodRaven]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
You seem to be almost talking about herding cats.

Getting a bunch of people to decide on anything would take FOREVER.

You are talking about maybe 1 million people with god knows how many votes deciding one which textbook would be best for a math class in a single state. Would it have to be decided by a majority vote or with everyone in perfect agreement.

How would you stop religion from playing a major role in textbook choices since older more religious people have more votes?

Who would decide on how much to tax, and on what?

So with the government owing everything, where is the desire to create a new product if the government is going to come in and just take control of your ideas.

Plus if you need to sue a business which the government owns, you will be represented by the government. So that is a major conflict of interest.

Plus giving monies to corporations that have a larger profit margin than others? If the government already owns them, why would they give them more money instead of rolling over the profits into the national piggy bank?

What about highway and bridge upkeep? Who votes on monies to them? Everyone in connecting states? Street cleaners? Boat captains? With no one in control or taking responsibility for such important issues, things will break down.

Plus, family influences, money payoffs, under the table deals, black market economy, sign-offs, no show jobs, theses things happen. Your system looks likes a fairy tale with no real basis in reality.

What about health care, hospital's, and emergency services? Does the government own them as well? Do they get money depending on how many they treat or don't treat? What about research? What would be the point of innovation if the government is just going to come in and take whatever you create, pimp it and bitch slap you?

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#37185 - 03/31/10 12:01 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: XiaoGui17]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17

I'm very curious about your brand of fascism. I understand the idea of uniting people under a common banner and central authority. But fascism also usually entails socioeconomic control and censorship or suppression of opposition. I generally think that a market that is left alone naturally rewards what's valuable to people much better than any government interference could. I also feel that governments should not punish any form of consciousness or expression. Perhaps they should respond to allegations they consider false or misleading, but simply retaliating with punishment gives the impression that the government has something to hide.


I find it interesting that you especially link fascism to socioeconomic control, censorship and suppression of opposition while all three are part of any form of government. Even when you look at democracy (take a close look at Europe) they are in plain sight. Maybe not over the top as in past totalitarian systems but still. I do support all three and think they should be part of any clever government. What you should understand is that the government of my brand of fascism does not serve the many and as such, it is inevitable it has to control them when it desires a certain direction.

D.

Top
#37188 - 03/31/10 01:27 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 320
Loc: SoCal
As I understand it [and I may be wrong], Freedom and Control or Liberty and Tyranny are not two different "things" but two points of a circular continuum.

So that if we take tyranny too far we end up with freedom, in the sense that if a government takes tyranny/control too far people will revolt and gain their freedom.

But if we take freedom too far then we end up with the tyranny, in the sense that chaotic anarchy comes into being.

The key would be to learn to figure out the "right" combination of freedom/control or liberty/tyranny or incoherency/coherency in such a way that the end result is the most productive.

Like a nuclear power plant where the extreme radioactive heat and the cooling system are both used to acquire the right mix so that the most energy is produced.

So there must be a right mix of [personal] liberty and [mass]'control' so that in the end the advancement of the people/citizens involved is optimal.

This right balance between control and freedom reminds me of a painter. If we have a painter who is tried of painting inside the lines, and he lets his brush just do whatever it wants he will end up with scribbles, i.e.: modern art; which looks very different from a piece by Michael Angelo. But if you control the freedom of your brush too much, you may end up with a Picasso where everything looks ridiculously boxy.

Or a better example to explain how I see liberty and control would be Music. There are only 7 real music notes [not considering it's octaves].

We hear these notes out in nature everywhere in an incoherent form, which is the state of these notes existing in a state of uncontrolled freedom. It's chaotic, it's gibberish, it's mostly just every day noise. But when a composer uses his intelligences to bring these same notes into order ["control"] music is produced.

So, it would be more sensible to approach the art and science of governance backwards by first asking ourselves what the End Result is that we desire.

If the End Result is the progression and advancement of its citizens: technological, social, intellectual advancement; then we need to ask ourselves how the incoherent collective raw force of the people can be intelligently controlled to produce the synergy needed to manifest such an End Result.

After we have come to understand what needs to be done to produce such synergy, then we must ask ourselves if we are each willing to give up some of our incoherent "freedom" to contribute to this syngery. In other words, if giving up some of our liberty worth human advancement?

It took the synergy of the US to put some of our people on the Moon. Certain people had to give up the freedom of certain aspects of daily life to live in a rigid environment of college and universities to become scientists.

Certain people had to give up a small portion of their income in the form of taxes which collectively paid for the NASA's effort.

Certain people had to give up the freedom of unemployment and doing what they wanted to work 40 hours a week building things.

All that intelligent control of raw force manifested as productivity which yielded a great end result: the literal advancement of our species into space. Was it all worth it?

If tomorrow the American government said: "Ok, we've had enough, you people are on your own, we're following Rush to Costa Rica."

What would become of us 300 million people and our descendants 100 years from now? If we had absolute freedom.
_________________________
Chloe 352

Top
#37191 - 03/31/10 02:21 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
BloodRaven Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/12/09
Posts: 12
Loc: Tucson, AZ
Morgan, I've given some considerations to your comments.

"You are talking about maybe 1 million people with god knows how many votes deciding one which textbook would be best for a math class in a single state. Would it have to be decided by a majority vote or with everyone in perfect agreement."

This is a major and valid criticism of the system of direct democracy. Firstly, in my system as previously stated you would only be able to vote on an issue if it is in your department. That would shave off an enormous amount of votes because you would only be able to vote in your area of expertise. The majority number of votes would be the deciding factor of any budget allocation. People would also have varying numbers of votes for any issue. If you are one of the most experienced teachers out there you get 10 votes to cast on any individual education issue. Another thing to consider is there would be no individual states in my government. So, the textbook they get in Seattle would be the same in New York. Secondly, you would not be forced to vote so local issues could be addressed. Lets say there is a bridge needing repair in L.A.. The vote to allocate funds would go up in the transportation department. People in the transportation department in NYC have better things to do than vote on LA bridge repair. I know what your thinking. Then what is stopping big cities from just taking all the money? That would be a concern that the lawyer department would have to address. They would have to pass some sort of law where local funds would only be able to draw from the national funds in proportion to their population size.

"How would you stop religion from playing a major role in textbook choices since older more religious people have more votes?"
I'm going to get some flack for this but I've always thought teaching religion in schools is a good thing. I would have loved to have had a religious studies class in high school. Religion is one of those things that really has woven itself into a lot of aspects of our culture(like it or not). More education would lead better recognition of that. The problem would occur when they start replacing biology books with intelligent design books, which have no place in a science class. Here's how I would solve the problem. Let's say every year one biology book is chosen for the 8th grade. The education department would vote in conjunction with the biological research department to decide which book would be best. A book on math would go to mathematical research department and education department so on and so forth.

"Who would decide on how much to tax, and on what?"
Taxes would be levied by the revenue department in conjunction with the economy department. Both would use their expertise to decide how much and what taxes should be levied on depending on current department needs and economic concerns.

"So with the government owing everything, where is the desire to create a new product if the government is going to come in and just take control of your ideas."

Each government owned company would be completely independent upon itself. There would be no government department for taking over ideas. Laws would be put in place to prevent that.

"Plus if you need to sue a business which the government owns, you will be represented by the government. So that is a major conflict of interest."

This is an interesting concern to address. You have to understand in my government there wouldn't be a central government like we have now. Technically, the public would own the companies, the revenue department would fund the companies based upon their sales and the companies themselves would be independent to allocate funds towards research funding etc. So really, a person suing a company has the same stake in the company as the lawyers arguing the case. Bribes between the lawyer faction and a given company would have to be strictly forbidden as they are already.

"Plus, family influences, money payoffs, under the table deals, black market economy, sign-offs, no show jobs, theses things happen. Your system looks likes a fairy tale with no real basis in reality."

Yes Yes. I'm not saying that no bad things would ever happen but I am saying I think I can minimize these things by:
*stringent regulation of education and testing standards that would decide a persons department.
*direct democracy inside departments.
*economic regulations put in place by the lawyer and economic departments based upon current need.
*Labor department would remove any "no shows" or incompetent people from their department.

"What about health care, hospital's, and emergency services? Does the government own them as well? Do they get money depending on how many they treat or don't treat? What about research? What would be the point of innovation if the government is just going to come in and take whatever you create, pimp it and bitch slap you?"

Yep, the public owns the medical services. Healthcare would be decided by the medical department. The medical department would get one lump sum from the revenue department and then they could decide what to do. The best and most experienced doctors would have the most votes to make regulations on how to allocate funds, patient care regulations so on and so forth.

Like I said before, the government would not be taking any products from the companies. If you wanted to buy a Ford car you could. The money you spent on that car would immediately go to the revenue department, then taxed, then end back up at Ford. It's like the free market system we have now but there is an extra step of money movement going on. Ford still gets their money and still gets to choose how they spend it. Having that extra step there makes sure nobody is not paying their taxes. The labor department has an indirect role in companies because they get to choose what company gets what employee and what pay/vote level they are. The labor department would strive to make the companies up in a way that creates the most competition. Remember back in elementary school when you had to pick your team? One person would be picked at a time by each team to insure that each team was balanced. That way a competitive game was sure to ensue.

I know my government may be a dream. Im just so sick of politicians running the country. I want a country that makes decisions based upon what's best not what looks good for re-election. Politicians are very good at talking (manipulating) and thats about it. The teachers should run education, doctors should run heathcare, the generals the military.

Now that I think about it I really don't know where my government would fit into the whole original 1 to 10 question. 1 being anarchy 10 being totalitarian.

Top
#37203 - 04/01/10 12:54 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: BloodRaven]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
BloodRaven, this government is quite bureaucratic and the idea that government will own companies and give them back money based on what they owe is just a reversal of taxation, where people earn money and pay the government a share for local/national upkeep.

If we ask, what system works in a way that gives individuals incentives to work hard, the answer is capitalism. Individuals who work for themselves to succeed in a system that benefits others.

Caladrius, if the whole government decided to leave, each and every position, other than the less desirable bureaucratic ones, would be filled. There is always a desire for power that leads to government. This is why anarchy rarely exists for a long period of time.

In my opinion this discussion has become funny, because we're all wondering what framework would allow the most freedom and still provide safety. Just because America has become quite statist does not mean that it is not the best system of government to have ever been created. It's lasted the longest amount of time as the freest nation and the solution is a Constitutional Democratic Republic. We simply need to have greater defense for Constitutional rights, as it is only a complacent population that has to fear oppression.

There is no perfect Utopian system, as competition will always have some degree of strife, but competition is by all means, whether evolutionary or satanically, the best way to achieve the best results, and the free-market system, where voluntary participation benefits individuals and society, is by far the best. The only problems are people becoming lazy and electing politicians who aren't held accountable, but we have only ourselves to blame for that.

Sure I am an anarchist at heart, and if we could minimize the role of government and replace each aspect with a more effective and efficient private sector, I would completely support that. But until we have reached a level of economic prosperity and stability, it won't happen.

Those claiming support of fascism are overlooking the way that government collusion with the free market inherently fails and is as bad as government interference. It's the boom and bust cycle. Unbalance the economy in one way and there is an equal and opposite reaction somewhere else. It is an economic truth that one cannot simply print more money without taking value from somewhere else. Lower interest rates and subsidize housing markets, expect things to go great until people stop investing, then everything will collapse. Fascism is not only a failure economically, but by preaching that a select group of people is better than another, the government will naturally start taking the rights of all. Unless you just want to benefit the inner party, in which case there will be an eventual uprising.

Democracy is the best form of government, and that which requires the most citizen participation, because it does not go through the same cycle of taking power until it collapses. One cannot make more rules to legislate behavior either; No amount of rules can make up for actual involvement and effort. Decentralization is key to effective government that respects rights and allows the most prosperity. Equality is not self-evident, but Oppression's greed for more and more power is.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#37431 - 04/06/10 05:04 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Caladrius]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I agree that Liberty and Tyranny or Freedom and Control are not two different things or opposites. I myself prefer to see them as a matter of perspective. I even think they are one and the same. Mind you, I'm talking about the sense of freedom or sense of control here which is, when it comes to government, what most call freedom or control.

The problem (in perception) is that there is always control but close to never freedom. It can be the State which controls but culture, society, family or environment can control as much. Free speech is a nice example. Many people think it is a sign of freedom if the State allows free speech but forget that, even if the State allows it, your culture, society or family still control you and can make you suffer the consequences when going down a path they don't prefer. Even living in a (human) deserted area, which many equate with total freedom, at the same time implies you're controlled by your environment. We tend to call it control when it is obviously control and freedom when control is not so obvious.
It's a bit like advertising where we buy something at "half price" and fool ourselves into thinking we saved half the cash while we actually spend it. As such, freedom is a bargain too which might seem free because we imagine there could be a more severe cost and in doing that, often ignore the actual cost. When the actual cost shows up, we mostly tend to call it unfair while it was the very price which was always attached to it.

But when it comes to government, I agree that to rule the mass, a right mix has to be found between their sense of control and their sense of freedom.

D.


Edited by Diavolo (04/06/10 05:05 PM)

Top
#37442 - 04/07/10 06:40 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
I'm amused by this thread and it's because I'm amused I reply because otherwise I think all this is probably a big waste of time.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that Satanism sustains as principles "the survival of the fittest" (and as a consequence the extinction of the unfitted) and justice.

So the question is what form of government would best implement these satanic principles?

From justice, the meritocracy seems to be the best form of government: the more you do, the more you get. This seems perfect, ideal I would almost say.

But every government claims for justice and pretend to be just.

A communist state will pretend it's just that every people get the same salary whatever his job is.
An Islamic state will claim sharia is just and will punish the sinners.

A democratic state will claim that it's just that the majority rules
An aristocratic state will claim it's just the nobles decide
And a tyrant will claim he's just.

And what if I think it's unjust?

Here enters the other principle: the survival of the fittest.
In every society, whatever the form of government is, the more you're clever, courageous, self-honest... the easier you'll manage to get what you want. That's the only justice I know and it has nothing to do with a form of government it's just a natural law.

Because in a communist state, you don't need to be a good communist but just to convince others you're. And in an Islamic state, it's not the better Muslim who gets the reward but the one who convince the others he is!
In a democracy, you just have to be popular and in a tyranny to make the tyrant your friend... or to kill him.

There is no IDEAL government; they're all corrupted in some way because humans are always corruptible to some extent.

Whatever the form of a government, if there is an ideology behind it stinks! Would it be communism, Islamism, Christianity, Egalitarism... or Satanism.

That's why I say my ideal form of government is anarchy: stricto sensu, no government. I personally share the view of Dan (free market) but I’m conscious it’s probably an ideal. There will always be cheaters, robbers, lazy and corrupted people for reminding us all men are not men of valor. And for them, just leave them alone, let them fuck their lives and die !

Top
#37451 - 04/08/10 04:52 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
I think you caught my point Maw ;-)

For answering your question (again) I think free market would be the ideal circumstances.

Finaly, I'll quote Ayn Rand (in substance):

"Every dictator is a mystic and every mystic is a potential dictator."

Top
#37452 - 04/08/10 11:19 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Of course the 'fit' would prosper under any form of government. Government (in this shape) is never necessary for the 'fit' but it should be there for those that need control. And that group is pretty huge. And, of course, an ideal government would eliminate the dross or at least reward those that eliminate them, instead of, as is too often done now, punish them to the equivalent of telling them they're a naughty boy".

D.

Top
Page 3 of 7 <12345>Last »


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.043 seconds of which 0.015 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.