Communism, Democracy, and Anarchy

[Ishop]

Communism is for the intellegent dreamer,
Anarchy is for the ignorant dreamer,
Democracy is for the realistic.

Democracy, unlike the other two, is compatable with human nature. The problem with the other two is that it does not take into account that human nature is greed and power. Survival of the fitest. Unfortuantly Survival of the fitest is not mostly beneficial as it seems in society. So what we get is a dull, unmoralistic working democracy. Anarchy cannot work simply because of the nature of it. No government. The problem is that someone somewhere will start to gain authority (human nature) and eventually a dictatorship will rise (not anarchy). Of course there is no way for anarchy to defend itself simply because there is no government in which to enforce non-government. I think we've all seen the problems with Communism, it doesn't work because man will seek out more power than he is alloted in Communism and corrupt it. Democracy, while working the best of the three, still has its potential of coruption. However since the power is dispursed to many instead of just a few or one, the coruption isn't as severe and it can be held.

Question: Is there a better way we have not yet used? Another form of government that we have not come up with.

[zk4586]

Another form of government that we have not come up with.

How would we know?

[wuliheron]

Exactly, this is nothing short of pure propoganda and has no place on the philosophy bulletin board. For your information, communism and democracy are not mutually exclusive terms. Fascism is the word you are hunting for, and ignorant statements such as this contribute to the spread of fascism.

[Ishop]

zk4586, i was asking for some ideas in coming up with one, not that there is one and we just don't know it. Sorry, should have made it more clear I suppose.

wuliheron, where did all that come from? If it doesn't belong on the board then it will be moved, its not your decission. For your information communism, democracy, and anarchy are philosophies so yes they belong on a philosophy forum. And no, I do not mean facism. I said communism, I meant communism. How dare you call my statement ignorant and say that they lead to facism! You don't know me. Propaganda defined by Websters Dictionary is: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause I have no cause here. Only wishing intellegent conversation of new ideas in government. There's no need to viciously attack someones thread like that. You seem to acuse me of having agendas every time we are on the same thread. No one else reads these. Nothing will change and I will not become ruler of the world someday because I wrote something on some forum. If you have nothing intellegent to put forth do not say anything at all. Stop upping the count of your posts by ridiculing every thread I start or post in.

[RageSk8]

Democracy, unlike the other two, is compatable with human nature.

This is absurd. We have seen communism is the same sense that we have seen democracy. Both have been patterns of human behavior. Communism failed in Russia not because it was battling against human nature but because it was poorly economically managed. Cuba is still in "communism" (again, in the same sense that I can use "democracy') and still better off than it was under American set-up dictatorships before Castro. I am not a communist. I am definitely not a Communist. Our "democracy" is better in most ways than any modern "communism" anyone has seen or thought of (in the industrial world).

This brings me to my next point: Both Democracy and Communism ideally are forms of anarchy. Anarchy is simply a system of free association. The perfect (but overly idealistic and mystical) example of pure democracy is Locke's natural world populated by natural man. Here government is simply a system of reciprocal trust to protect rights - it is constituted by men who freely associate. In pure Communism the revolution ends and the proletariat shares both in communal resources and political rights. So, anarchy can be seen as simply an idealized liberal government based upon free association. It should be mentioned that "pure democracy" (at least in any Englightenment driven post-Roman philosophical sense) must also have shared resources. Property has to be seperated from from resources. This is because property is created by an individual out of the communally owned "world". If Locke wrote 150 years later, he would have had to stuipulate, like Marx, some type of distribuation of wealth (distribuation of wealth in Marxism is philosophically arrived at to harmonize the dialect of prodoction and the means of production - in order for Locke to keep his core premise of "natural rights" he would have been forced to say the same in an industrial context).

What does this all mean? Nothing other than you are really, really wrong. Theory is nice but it hardly ever gets one anywhere - this is because there is no nice little box to conceptualize human political and economic interaction. There will always be problems. As a liberal who believes that democracy has the most promise for the future I can only say this: We will never be done. We have no map to go by. All we can do is try to learn more and see what works in certain circumstances. Circumstances will never be the same so solutions will never be the same. Sometimes it takes imagination and experimentation. What we should do (here is the ethnocentric liberalism) is try to expand the benefits we, the lucky few, have recieved (regretably, often times by exploiting others). We have to learn about different types of people we normally wouldn't associate with. Litterature and ethnography are great for this. This does not mean we have to accept or respect what we find, often times we won't and can't. But by creating dialague, by creating conversation, we find the only hope for progress (progress in, I admit, a very ethnocentric context),

[zk4586]

There does seems to be this common misconception that communism has actually developed in some countries. If one is talking about true communism, the way Karl Marx envisioned it, then one must concede that no country has ever gotten past the socialist revolution.

[wuliheron]

wuliheron, where did all that come from? If it doesn't belong on the board then it will be moved, its not your decission. For your information communism, democracy, and anarchy are philosophies so yes they belong on a philosophy forum. And no, I do not mean facism.

For your information I Live on an Anarchistic Commune which practices Democracy.

http://www.ic.org/acorn/

Again, these are not mutually exclusive terms by any stretch of the imagination. Nor are they philosophies, they are lifestyles. There exists a great deal of philosophy that supports each lifestyle, but ideas are not the reality. There is no single philosophy anyone wrote called "democracy" because it is not a philosophy any more than "matriarchy", "patriarchy", "mob rule", etc. are philosophies.

There's no need to viciously attack someones thread like that. You seem to acuse me of having agendas every time we are on the same thread. No one else reads these.

Sorry, but this thread is personally insulting. I'm not accusing you of having any private agenda here, just of ignorantly regurgitating rather insulting propoganda.

In general more communistic countries claim that without financial equality democracy is impossible while more capitalistic countries stress the right to vote. They are both correct as far as I am concerned. Without equality democracy is impossible.

What distinguishes a wild mob from a democratic group is equality and considered decission making. The ancient Athenian motto was, "Strike if you must! But hear me first!" Modern democracies all have constitutional rights to protect the minorities against the majority which can and will take care of itself, sometimes at the expense of the minorities.

[FZ+]

I would step in and say that what matter is not how well a government fits the amorphous entity of human nature to decide which is better, but how well it fits in with the culture of the nation in which it is conducted. In many early, militaristic civilisations, dictatorships were in fact best, prizing the values of individual strength, stability and vigor that these civilisations found important. There is no one holy "best" way.

[arivero]

I do not like to enter this kind of question because of the propaganda war and all that. But well, lets go. I'll try to get attached to science and physics, by the way :)

The question of survival of the fittest was addressed by Kropotkin in his book "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution". http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html. One of his motivations to write the book was to counterweight the political use of Evolution Theory. Kropotkin was naturalist and geologist (compare with E. Reclus, another famous anarchist thinker). So he agreed with Darwin from the point of view of Natural Selection, but strongly disagreed with Huxley, Thomas Henry, because of the so-called Social Darwinism, which was interested reinterpretation of the Theory. TH Huxley was indeed the author of the 1888 article "The Struggle for Existence and Its Bearing upon Man".

Say that, the real papers converting me towards anarchism where the Conquest of Bread, http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html, (specially chapter 9, http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch9.html) as well as its companion volume, Fields, Factories and WorkShops, http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/fields.html and in a minor way an small booklet titled "Science and Anarchy", http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/science/toc.html.

These works pointed to the possibility of a model where capital flows without restrictions, increasing productivity over the limits of capitalist models. I sketched this point in my pamphlet "Overproduction goal, or Why property is thief",
http://www.algonet.se/~rsm/actual/archive/overprod.htm. Also, from the point of view of econophysics, or Physics of Ownership one can interpret Kropotkin's economies as a kind of scale-invariant economy from were capitalism comes as a perturbation, exactly the same way that a first-order transition comes from a second-order transition... if market had a renormalization group, Anarchist economies would be the fixed points from which the renormalized lines outflow.

Yours,

Alejandro


PS: The Cynosure pointers are mirrored in http://ispp.org/Anarchist_Archives/index.html

[Ishop]

wuliheron, I could care less what your response is. Your first post was not warranted and you are not talking on the subject this thread was meant for. You said:
Again, these are not mutually exclusive terms by any stretch of the imagination. Nor are they philosophies, they are lifestyles.
Hold on, let me go tell the professors in the Humanities department to stop teaching Marx in their philosophy classes lol.
You also said:
For your information I Live on an Anarchistic Commune which practices Democracy

Then you live in a democratic commune. Most probably you are simplifying the arrangement of authority where you live so I will not argue about where you live since you live there and I do not. However a commune is not a government. It is a commune. ANd this thread is about governments. Most likely your form of authority on this commune would not work with millions or billions. Try going to the hood and telling them "okay, no more cops, we're just going to agree to be equal and work together" BANG!

FZ, interesting outlook. Don't you think that a change of government can change that culture though?

zk4586, exactly. I am talking about the philosophy of communism, not the actual misused practice of it. The communism being practiced today and in the past is not the perfect model of communism. Niether is the democracy in America. No government will ever be practiced with perfection because of coruption. The idea of communism is actually a superior form of government than democracy. However the practice of it by humans makes it fall a great deal short of democracy which is created more constructivley for reality.

RageSk8, of course there is working communism, I did not mean to say that there wasn't. However you do bring up the economic problems of Russia and to be honest Cuba itslef is not a rich country. China is also having problem economicaly. Not that America isn't but come on, obviously we are the richest nation in the world. Capitalism seem to be a better part of the arguement here. China considering capitalism nationwide, much like Hong Kong already practices showed that capitalism is the best working economic status right now. I could see communism working economicly only if the entire world was communist.

[wuliheron]

wuliheron, I could care less what your response is. Your first post was not warranted and you are not talking on the subject this thread was meant for.

Your original post is promoting social darwinism using capitalism disguised as democracy. If you don't like the fact that I and others are protesting this and offering counter arguments, perhaps your vision of "democracy" doesn't include free speach.

Then you live in a democratic commune. Most probably you are simplifying the arrangement of authority where you live so I will not argue about where you live since you live there and I do not. However a commune is not a government. It is a commune. ANd this thread is about governments.

To govern is to limit or steer as in steer a ship of state. Size is not an issue. Virtually every organization from the red cross to the co-op bakery has their own internal government.

Most likely your form of authority on this commune would not work with millions or billions. Try going to the hood and telling them "okay, no more cops, we're just going to agree to be equal and work together" BANG!


Maybe where you live in your ivory towers they can be depended for the protection of lilly white heterosexual conservative americans, but not where I live and there are countless millions like me across the US. The increasing popularity of handguns, school shootings, race riots, and rap music among other things provide graphic proof of how highly regarded your cops, laws, state, and federal governments are as protectors and promoters of the peace.

You can depend upon the cops, but I'll go out and buy a gun of my own before ever calling those pigs again. Been there, done that. My daughter was mollested twice and all the cops did was ask the person who molested her if we were growing pot. Then the person who molested her shot our van full of nine mm holes and, again, nothing from the pigs but trouble. Of course, they also threatened to lock me up if I don't report any future problems.

My sista Nell just got bit by a rat, and whities on the moon playing golf. They aren't interested in justice or protecting people, that's not what they get paid for no matter what their motto is.

As for democracy vs communism, I still say the two are not mutually exclusive terms. However, I will admit that no large scale communist government has yet become democratic. However, many democracies have increasingly become more socialistic. Just as laze fare capitalism is no longer viable, neither is communism.

However, socialism leaning towards communism has proven viable and, in fact, England during WWII is often cited to have been the most communistic country during the last hundred years. When survival is threatened, not to mentional the money and assets of capitalists, they'll cough up the goods and share like good little boys and girls.

[Tiberius]

There are really two different concepts here that must be parsed out. There are systems of GOVERNMENT and systems of ECONOMICS.

Communism is more a system of government than of economics, and so belongs on the same spectrum with democracy, oligarchy, monarchy, anarchy, etc.

But Communism is usually thought of as administering an ECONOMIC system of SOCIALISM, which belongs on the spectrum with capitalism. However, it's possible for there to be other combinations of economic and governmental systems than we've seen in application.

For instance, the communist party is merely a political party, like any other. If we voted in a communist president, and then voted in a bunch of communist laws, we'd have a communistic democracy. What we had in russia was basically a tyrany (tyranical oligarchy that is) enforcing a one-party system, which happened to be the communist party.

Now, the communists like socialism, or really a variant of it, and it is really more often this ECONOMIC system that people talk about when they bring in the subject of human nature.

I myself am convinced that capitalism is not only superior to socialism in the sense of practicality, but also morally superior to it. Those who would advocate a socialistic democracy do not realize that the ability to own property it intrinsically linked to liberty. Socialism therefore inevitably leads to corruption and state-dominated systems of oppression.

It's true that Marx's version of communism has never been realized - and that is because it can only take place in a fantasy world, where human motivation is completely ignored. Therefore, Ishop is onto a real point when he brings up "human nature" although some of our definitions and categories may be a little unclear.

Capitalism may not be perfect, and it may require a "plugging up" of its holes, such as help for the needy, equal education opportunities, minimum wages, and basic medical care for all). Nevertheless, it IS a far cry better than socialism - An ideology (and YES - both a philosophy and a lifestyle) which denies basic human motivation and the ethical imperative of ownership and reward for work.

[wuliheron]

com·mu·nism

A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

If communism is a form of government than capitalism and socialism are also forms of government. Money and ownership are no doubt central issues any government must deal with, but bottom line what distinguishes different types of government is how the government itself is organized and functions.

As for the superiority of capitalism over socialism, you couldn't tell that from studying the demographics. The US, that bastion of capitalism, has consistently refused to sign any of the UN human rights charters for over thirty years now. Both Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch groups are actively campaining against the US. Among other things, some eighty or ninty percent of all children in the US live around the poverty line.

You can, of course, call these merely "cracks" in the system, but they are systemic cracks involving large percentages of the population. Less capitalistic and more democratic governments exist that do not have these kinds of systemic problems. I'll take results over moral superiority any day of the week.

[Ishop]

wuliheron said:
Among other things, some eighty or ninty percent of all children in the US live around the poverty line.
What "High Times" magazine did you get that from? LOL.
Your original post is promoting social darwinism using capitalism disguised as democracy.
No its not. It's not promoting anything, just asking for new ideas in government. If you have a problem with my ideas on government then respond like an intellegent adult. Not like:
Maybe where you live in your ivory towers they can be depended for the protection of lilly white heterosexual conservative americans, but not where I live and there are countless millions like me across the US. The increasing popularity of handguns, school shootings, race riots, and rap music among other things provide graphic proof of how highly regarded your cops, laws, state, and federal governments are as protectors and promoters of the peace.
Why am I reminded of high school kids?

Your personal experiences with police have no bearing on the subject of government. Your views are extreme and I seriously doubt your numbers are in the "countless millions". Show me a million man anarchist walk and I'll agree lol. I'm tired of listening to these childish remarks. You do nothing but pick arguements with anyone you can. People either ignore you or you kill any chance of real thought with your useless and unwarranted bickering. You damage these boards more than anyone else. I'm tired of dealing with idiots like yourself. I'm finished with this board.

PS: Maybe you could count on police for your families protection better if you didn't choose to live in a anarchist commune. Why did you call the police if you live in an anarchist commune? Seems hypocritical. Don't bother answering. I'm deleting the link to here. Dealing with you only lowers everyones IQ and NO ONE agrees with you.

[wuliheron]

What "High Times" magazine did you get that from? LOL.


Laugh all you want, that particular figure comes from Utne magazine, the largest and most respected alternative publication in the US. If you like, here is a website dedicated to collecting such statistics. The US consistently has had two and three times the childhood poverty rates of any modern western nation.

http://www.nccp.org/main4.html

The figures are dismal and have always been dismal. The richest country in the world has the worst human rights record for children of any country in the developed world and refuses to sign the UN charter for children's human rights. One in three girls is molested, one in five boys. One quarter of all women are raped and one third of all rapes involve children under 11 years old.

No its not. It's not promoting anything, just asking for new ideas in government.

I maintain it is ignorant regurgitation of right wing capitalist propoganda with serious darwinian socialism overtones.

If you have a problem with my ideas on government then respond like an intellegent adult.

Oh, so I should be making derogatory remarks about your sources such as referring to them as "High Times" magazine and laughing about the plight of children. Much more mature.


Your personal experiences with police have no bearing on the subject of government. Your views are extreme and I seriously doubt your numbers are in the "countless millions". Show me a million man anarchist walk and I'll agree lol.

What ivory tower were you hiding in during the Rodney King riots. Million man marches are not the only way to protest. Columbine and other forms of protest have become more popular since the love-in days of the sixties. The politicians and majority have clearly demonstrated since Reagan was elected they couldn't care less, so people are taking matters into their own hands when desperation sets in.

What comes around goes around. Call it extreme if you want, but it is the majority and the politicians who have created this extreme situation. If they hadn't spent a ton of money creating the largest prison population in history it'd be even worse.

[securitysix]

Seems we have a breakdown in definitions here. I'd like to take the time to point out that capitalism is NOT A FORM OF GOVERNMENT, it is an economic system.

From Dictionary.com:

cap·i·tal·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-zm)
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Communism is both:

com·mu·nism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmy-nzm)
n.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

And socialism, in a way:

so·cial·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Democracy is split up into several definitions:

de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

And:

pure democracy
n.
A democracy in which the power to govern lies directly in the hands of the people rather than being exercised through their representatives.

A common mistake is to consider the United States of America as a democracy rather than a republic.

re·pub·lic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-pblk)
n.
1.
a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
b. A nation that has such a political order.
2.
a. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
b. A nation that has such a political order.

The United States of America were originally designed to follow definition 2a of a republic. People forget this.

That aside, one must determine the proper role of a government before they can decide the ideal form of same. So, what do you want your government to do? I expect my government to respect and protect my rights and the rights of others. I expect my government to deal with foreign nations in such a way as to serve to protect and respect my rights and the rights of my fellow citizens. I expect my government to protect my interests and the interests of my fellow citizens - preemtively when possible, vengefully if necessary - through whatever means are appropriate - preferrably diplomatic, but by force if necessary. While the republic that stands in the United States is not perfect, it does an acceptable job at performing these tasks to suit my tastes, though I do not argue that it has its flaws.

I do not expect my government to provide charity to those who are too lazy to work. I will tolerate my government supporting those who are unable to work. I do not expect my government to deal with foreign nations who deny people their rights with the same degree of diplomacy as they would a nation who protects and respects the rights of their own citizens. I expect my government to recognize my sovereignty and to not try to forfeit it to some foreign body.

Last, but not least, I expect my government to leave me alone when it comes to matters that do not concern them. If my actions do not interfere with the rights of others, then my actions do not concern them. But then, that's just me. What do you want from your government?

PS. >Sorry my post is so long, just had to get that off my chest.<

[wuliheron]

Just as the Soviet Union regulated its economy, the US regulates its economy. With a rather complex system I might add in which one quarter of the population's income goes to the federal government. Although the Soviet Union theoretically owned everything, that just wasn't the reality. Half their economy was the black market and individuals still had to buy their own washers and dryers, etc.

Thus, such dictionary definitions of communism as a form of government are meaningless propoganda to me. They simply do not reflect the reality of what we call communism much less capitalism.

As for socialism, that definition is yet another gross oversimplification of the reality as well. There are literally hundreds of definitions of socialism, but essentially they break down to the idea of property being owned and regulated for the public good rather than just for the necessity of the government to continue functioning. Most socialist countries just own the more basic economic engines of their economies such as the chemical industries, power, etc.

The US government owned and operated the postal service for the common good, but could easily make a case it is not a socialist country because it only did so out of necessity. Eventually it did actually farm that particular business out to private business, but notably it still owns such things as the national park system in the name of the public good. And, yes, the US is a republic, but it is a representative democratic republic. We elect officals who elect and appoint other officals.

I hope that isn't too confusing, but that's politics. I'm no political expert, but I do know enough to recognize gross over simplifications and political rhetoric.

[securitysix]

The United States are hardly perfect, far from it, in fact. That said, I cannot think of another governmental system that has been tried that I would prefer to live under. That is not the point of the original poster's question, though. The question was: "can we think of a better form of government than any that has been tried?".

I've already given a list of what I expect from my government, so find me one that can do that. That would be better than what the United States currently have. Until then, while the US government isn't perfect, it's close enough for jazz.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by Ishop
Communism is for the intellegent dreamer,
Anarchy is for the ignorant dreamer,
Democracy is for the realistic.

Democracy, unlike the other two, is compatable with human nature. The problem with the other two is that it does not take into account that human nature is greed and power. Survival of the fitest. Unfortuantly Survival of the fitest is not mostly beneficial as it seems in society. So what we get is a dull, unmoralistic working democracy. Anarchy cannot work simply because of the nature of it. No government. The problem is that someone somewhere will start to gain authority (human nature) and eventually a dictatorship will rise (not anarchy). Of course there is no way for anarchy to defend itself simply because there is no government in which to enforce non-government. I think we've all seen the problems with Communism, it doesn't work because man will seek out more power than he is alloted in Communism and corrupt it. Democracy, while working the best of the three, still has its potential of coruption. However since the power is dispursed to many instead of just a few or one, the coruption isn't as severe and it can be held.

Question: Is there a better way we have not yet used? Another form of government that we have not come up with.
This is superb Ishop !

Your first paragraph is extremely accurate
and your question is something I've often wodered
about but never found an alternative (so far).
I think this is a very important and intresting
subject to discuss.

You're central paragraph is also very general but
accurate nevertheless. I'd like to though, if I may,
offer a small change in the sentence - "Democracy...
is compatable with human nature." What you say after
that already shows this not to be the case.
A more appropriate claim would probably be -
"Democracy... is the best currently known
way to allow a large human society to
exist and prosper despite human nature."

So, any ideas people ?

Live long and prosper.

[drag]

Greetings !

I can think of "limmited" democracies like
vote and rule rights for military/high education
people, but they all seem to lead to
disadvantages like uneven rule.

Maybe increasing the vote age a bit.
Or, maybe choosing presidents for
shorter/longer periods.

Any other ideas ?

Live long and prosper.

[Njorl]

New form of government:

HIVE MENTALITY

In the near future we can genetically engineer a super being of nearly transcendent intelligence and wisdom. To eliminate the possibility of jealous rivalry, there will only be one at a time. Other beings will be gnetically engineered to fill various niches in our model society. Thinkers will be made with great intelligence, but no envy. Workers will be made who enjoy labor with minimal reward. All will have obedience to the super-being bred into them. It will be a utopia. Please let me die before I see it!

Njorl

[wuliheron]

Any other ideas ?


Abraham Lincon said he freed the slaves because the majority never would have. Maybe he was exaggerating a bit, but there is little doubt it might have required another hundred years to occur otherwise. Similar laws have been created and struck down, such as Row vs Wade, that overturned the strongly held opinions of the majority for better or worse.

Supposidly the better alternative to communist, socialist, and capitalist democracies and republicanism is Meritocracy.... rule by the good deed doers. This might sound like so much pie in the sky wishy-washy liberal thinking, but there is a great deal of precident to suggest this is indeed where the world is headed.

Grameen Bank presents one of the clearer examples of this newly emerging trend and how it is expected to change the world dramatically along with future technological developments ( http://www.grameen-info.org/ ).

Essentially, ninty percent of the world's economy today is pure speculation, mostly in the stock market, on what will be the next hot development. The result has been that in twenty years the oceans are estimated to no longer be commercially fishable, in fifty years every land animal larger than a dog is expected to be extinct or only exist in zoos. Currently the Japanese are sinking rainforest harvested trees in the deep pacific expecting that their value will skyrocket when they become either extinct or too rare to cut down anymore.

The world's food reserves are now at an all time low, the topsoil is washing away, etc. etc. etc. Short of several technological miracles occuring, either Meritocracies and bootstrap systems like Grameen Bank become ubiquitous in the near future or chaos will result. Even the supposidly greatest economists and ecological scientists in the world today agree on this point. As usual, however, I expect national governments and economies to remain reactionary for the most part and lag behind in these developments which will be largely grass roots in origin.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by wuliheron
Supposidly the better alternative to communist, socialist, and capitalist democracies and republicanism is Meritocracy.... rule by the good deed doers.

Who will separate the good from the not good ?
Will the good excercise military strenght if the
not-good decide they've "had it" ?
Have you heard the expression - "Absolute power
corrupts absolutely." ?
Such a rule, again, is opposed to human nature and
hence it can not last.

I think that the key point of searching for
a good social order is not to try to please
and "fit" everyone's wishes and opinions - human
nature, but rather to search for an order
that will allow people to co-exist in the
best possible way while their human nature does
not conflict with that order and each other.
Originally posted by wuliheron
Grameen Bank presents one of the clearer examples of this newly emerging trend and how it is expected to change the world dramatically along with future technological developments...

I disagree with that having any connection
or positive effect on the world.

The point is that there are just too much of
us and we live too laxurious - high resource
demanding lives. How does giving money to people
help anything ?

It's always intresting to see these guys from
Green Peace opposing mining and so on and yet
supporting peace and "normal" life. Just how
do they think people are gon'na live ?!

People need their "space", the only way to stop
this is to limmit the people or seriously
limmit the life style (because other methods
like science and preservation can't keep up).
The majority of "average" people when
confronted with the question of whether to earn
their pay/limmit their life style or cut a
tree in the forest will make the logical and
only reasonable - to them, choice. And they'll
keep doing it until there are not enough trees
left and we all die from lack of oxygen, until
the ozone layer holes grow over the entire planet
and we all have cancer and until almost all
animals are extinct. The only way to stop it
is to have strict "birth" laws, like they do in China,
and thus decrease the world's population instead
of increasing it. And, as strange and cruel as it
may sound, a big war or two with lots of
cajualties could also help. When trees grow
you need to cut some of the branches to let
them grow better and upwards. But - nooo...
we are too obsessed with this sanctity of
human life stuff. And, of course, humans
are all knowing and all powerful and our
science can solve everything in time - we can't
just loose big time like this suddenly, no way !

And if you think I'm saying crazy stuff, just
keep living your "normal" lives as you do for
several more decades and the end will be
swift and painless - I hope.

But, that was way off topic...
So, forget about it... (in the De-Nero style)[;)]

Live long and prosper.

[wuliheron]

Who will separate the good from the not good ?
Will the good excercise military strenght if the
not-good decide they've "had it" ?


People will, just as the do now. It's a mistake to think of government as merely the offical system. To govern means to limit or to steer as in steering a ship. As I have already pointed out, the majority and the most powerful don't always get their way even in a democracy or dictatorship.

Twenty guys armed with nothing more than ten cent razor blades just brought the world's strongest economy to its knees. That situation isn't gonna get better, its going to get worse. Either the US learns how to be a good deed doer and stop supporting repressive dictatorships and exploiting people for money, or it simply won't survive in the long run. Eventually the good deed doers themselves will shape who does what as everyone else gets the message and gives them the room they need to work.

This is essentially how nature works as well, if you insist on talking about "human nature". Aggression is advantageous in the wild, but too much is self-destructive and can threaten the group as well. Among chimps, if the Alpha male becomes too aggressive a chimp low in the hierarchy will sneak up behind him and bash his brains in with a club. If not, the females will jump behind the bushes with their favorite male the minute they go into heat and make sure the Alpha doesn't reproduce. Eventually he'll leave the troop and join a new one at the bottom of the social ladder.

A study of African tribal history and human history in general showed pretty much the same results as what I have described with the chimp troops. If one group was too violent all the others would gang up on them. The world just can't allow such insanity to continue much longer. The days of the expanding Roman, Mongal, European, and American empires are over. There is no more new frontier, we have got to make it here.

[securitysix]

Meritocracy.... rule by the good deed doers.

I think I saw an episode of The Outer Limits like this once, well, not quite, anyway.

A bunch of women decided that men were the cause of too much violence and war in the world, so the decided to destroy them. Use of an airborne chemical agent that affected only the Y chromosome (sp?) killed something like 97% or 98% of the male population of the planet. The women then decided that the other 2 or 3% had to go, so they started killing them some other way (shooting them, I think). Some of these men escaped into the wilderness and hid out for a while and the women forgot about them. Propogation of the species was carried out through cloning, without the Y chromosome, and no more men were born. All of a sudden, out of nowhere, a man appeared who was too young to be a survivor of the original chemical attack, and when the women found out, they went nuts. They started trying to wipe out the men again, even though they had not been harmed by this man or any others in years.

Anyway, the point is, the "kinder, gentler, doers of good deeds" are not always the best people to govern the rest, it really depends on the situation. You can't account for all possibilities all of the time, so you have to try to account for most of the possibilites most of the time and hope the rest don't come back to bite you in the arse.

If we could trust Meritocracy to work, I'd be all for it, as it does sound like a better system on paper than anything else, and I'm sure it works on a smaller scale. Can it work on a national or multi-national level?

[wuliheron]

I think I saw an episode of The Outer Limits like this once, well, not quite,

Not even remotely, but it does bring up an important point. Ninty percent of all violent crimes are committed by young men between 18 and 25, and the majority of these men have been linked to a particular genetic makeup. Aggression as I said is supported in nature as survival advantage, but nature prefers to remain flexible on such details. Thus you have cultures like the !Kung who had only one serious rape, murder or theft every fourhundred years before the the white man came. Many have already suggested gene therapy to deal with the problem.

Anyway, the point is, the "kinder, gentler, doers of good deeds" are not always the best people to govern the rest, it really depends on the situation. You can't account for all possibilities all of the time, so you have to try to account for most of the possibilites most of the time and hope the rest don't come back to bite you in the arse.

"Kinder, gentler" are your words, not mine.

Grameen Bank doesn't just give money away, they demand services in return. The vast majority of the people they loan money to are women. The reason why is women are not only less violent, but tend to manage money better and be more reliable in keeping their end of the bargan. Grameen is now worth over a billion dollars and claims to have never had a single person renige on the bargan. The women make sure of that with the ferocity only an outraged mamma can bring to the situation.

However, Grameen presents a threat to loan sharks everywhere who prey on the destitute. If any of them attacked the bank though, they'd have hell to pay not only from these women but their husbands and everyone else as well. Other grass roots organizations such as this, like habitat for humanity, have also proven their ability to survive. In olden times, banks and other corporate interests might have easily destroyed such efforts.

I'm not talking about some kind of perfect lovey dovey Utopia. If you like fiction, Star Trek presents a much better example of the kind of meritocracy I am talking about. The behind the scenes story of Star Trek is that the earth has become a meritocracy in which money plays a vanishingly small role. If someone wants something, they just walk up to the nearest replicator and ask for it. As for maintaining order and being prepared for the unexpected, they have star fleet which serves the entire world.

To a great extent, this process has already begun. As I've already said, ninty percent of the wealth of the world today is essentially speculation, in other words, information. Already one quarter of international trade today is barter trade. It simply makes no sense whatsoever to use money when the Russian Ruble changes value so quickly. Likewise, just as computers keep getting cheaper and more powerful every few years the same thing is happening across the board. Cars today cost one third what they used to, last three times as long, and come with lots of fluffy extras.

These are all trends economists and others have remarked upon for over ten years now. Huge changes in the world economy are expected sometime in the near future, but exactly what they will be and how it will occur are matters of intense speculation. However, a few things everyone agrees upon is that money will play a smaller role, information and barter trade will play an even larger role, and eventually these changes will entirely eclipse the current military/industrial complex just as it eclipsed the agracultural revolution.

I could go on and on, but if you wish to really understand long term economic, political, and cultural trends you should just read up on the subjects. What is certain is that describing them largely in terms of ancient fears, the present, and ethnocentric terms is misleading to say the least. Of all the people that have ever lived in civilization, half are alive today.

[drag]

What's up with all that optimism Wuliheron ?
Why are people so headstrong and certain that
humanity will be all right and thrive, why
do they think that if they went so far then
there's no chance they can fall ?

Live long and prosper.

[wuliheron]

The original question invites optimistic anaswers,

"What is a better form of government?"

In addition, nature and history provide optimism. Flexible species like humanity are survivors that adapt to changing conditions. People occupied every single continent on earth, for example, before the advent of civilization and today have no natural preditors.

However, if you want pessimism as well there is plenty that goes with this question. I already mentioned that twenty guys armed with razor blades just brought the world's largest economy to its knees. With the invasions of Afganistan and Iraq its evident the road to meritocracy will not be an easy one for countless millions.

The mongol empire is gone as is most of the culture that supported it, but the mongols remain. Albeit, almost as impoverished as ever. It was this extreme poverty that compelled them to invade china by the millions when starvation set in and the chinese to build enough walls to circle the earth 36 times. Today, the Han chinese are the decendents of some of these mongols and the remaining mongols' war horses have been replaced by food aid. Not an easy way to get a bite to eat.

[drag]

Originally posted by wuliheron
However, if you want pessimism as well there is plenty that goes with this question. I already mentioned that twenty guys armed with razor blades just brought the world's largest economy to its knees. With the invasions of Afganistan and Iraq its evident the road to meritocracy will not be an easy one for countless millions.

That is not what I'm talking about, but
that is a clear example of the optimism
part. Everyone thinks that history is a
good guide and shows that we always adapt.
But, in the past we always had where to
go. At present, the human race reproduces
at such rate that soon the planet will
not be able to support us in many ways
even condsidering the most dramatic scientific
and engeneering achievments.

Getting back to the subject of this thread,
purhaps, in light of the above, we need
to think in terms of global goverments
taking drastic steps to save us from
these potential future catastrophies.

Live long and prosper.

[wuliheron]

Everyone thinks that history is a
good guide and shows that we always adapt.
But, in the past we always had where to
go. At present, the human race reproduces
at such rate that soon the planet will
not be able to support us in many ways
even condsidering the most dramatic scientific
and engeneering achievments.

Actually, the latest census figures show that AIDS and other problems are slowing down population growth. Many have also argued that the remaining overpopulation problems are largely due to women being unempowered. In other words, whether or not science and technological developements will be able to keep pace is still up in the air. They may not have to keep pace for one thing.

Getting back to the subject of this thread,
purhaps, in light of the above, we need
to think in terms of global goverments
taking drastic steps to save us from
these potential future catastrophies.


Thinking alone never got anyone anywhere. For thoughts to be productive rather than merely counterproductive distractions requires that they be put into practical concrete actions.

Currently the US is by far the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world today. One could even argue that it already constitutes a defacto world government and the evangelical Bush administration is already putting its rudamentary world governing principles into action in defiance of the UN. Rather than merely reacting to attacks from various states or waiting for support from the majority of nations, the US is taking pre-emptive action in extreme cases.

Along these same lines, the US is updating and shaping the IMF policies, international trade, etc. all in effort not only to promote the interests of the US, but those of other nations as well. Unless other nation's economies thrive, that of the US itself will stall not to mention the resulting wars and terrorism that thrive under poverty.

Of course, you can argue that if the US constitutes a world government, it is not a democratic one and is failing to regulate the environment and what not effectively enough to stave off disaster. That is where meritocracy comes into play. If it isn't enough fast enough, hello stone age. However, there are at least a dozen fully self-sufficient underground cities around the world today. Civilization will likely make a speedy recovery.

[drag]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Actually, the latest census figures show that AIDS and other problems are slowing down population growth. Many have also argued that the remaining overpopulation problems are largely due to women being unempowered. In other words, whether or not science and technological developements will be able to keep pace is still up in the air. They may not have to keep pace for one thing.
As far as I heard, annual world population growth
is 100 million + . According to a very crude estimate
that puts us at 10 billion before 2030.
Unless, of course, the above mentioned drastic
measures or alternativly catastrophies occur.

Live long and prosper.

[wuliheron]

The estimated maximum population for the earth is fourteen billion. I know it doesn't look good, but thirty years or more in the future is a long term trend. I refuse to be either pessimistic or optimistic about such things, but instead, perfer to be reasonable. Sorry if that isn't comforting enough for you.

A great deal of the population growth in the world resembles what they call "fish pond" population trends. Boom and bust cycles. Africa's repeated famines and current AIDS epidemic are examples of what often occurs with such cycles. It ain't pretty, but that's the way it goes.

The current thoughts on the subject are that such boom and bust cycles are perpetuated by the disempowerment of women, political strife, and people living on land that simply will not support them. The next major additional cause of such boom and bust cycles is expected to be around access to water. Genetic engineering is making it possible to grow food in the desert and technology is making it possible to not only grow food in briney soil but to desalinate water, so to a significant extent it is the other two problems that are proving to be the most intractable.

As I've already indicated, the US is beginning to assert itself economically, politically, and militarilly as no longer willing to put up with terrorism and the other nasty by-products such totalitarian and repressive cultures and governments create. Exactly how it will all shake out in the end is anyone's guess, but for sure the environment will never be the same and the gravy train capitalist countries have enjoyed to date is on the downhill slide.

[russ_watters]

Wow, nothing like a little political theory to piss people off. Ishop, your assessment is ALMOST exactly correct, but maybe a little (very little) simplistic...
Originally posted by Ishop
Communism is for the intellegent dreamer,
Anarchy is for the ignorant dreamer,
Democracy is for the realistic.

Democracy, unlike the other two, is compatable with human nature. The problem with the other two is that it does not take into account that human nature is greed and power. Survival of the fitest. There are many aspects of human nature. You forget selfishness Anarchy fails because it is unstable - people will not live together in peace without laws. It is human nature to want power and eventually someone siezes it.

Communism is similar in that it is also unstable, but it is actually LESS stable than anarchy because it requires absolute cooperation between all participants. Anarchy does not. At the very least anarchy recognizes that people are different frome each other.

Clarification (someone else touched on it): The "communism" I speak of is Marxism or "pure" communism. Various watered down forms of communism have been tried and a few have even remained stable for a while. NONE have really worked though. Not even Cuba.

Also, I subscribe to the political theory of self determination: In order for a government to be "legitimate," the power MUST be derived from the PEOPLE. In practice, the ONLY form of government that meets this criteria is the various forms of democracy. Marxist communism would meet this criteria, and even complete anarchy would. But neither can actually function in REALITY. They are utopian pipe dreams.

Seems we have a breakdown in definitions here. I'd like to take the time to point out that capitalism is NOT A FORM OF GOVERNMENT, it is an economic system. Capitalism is the economic system that goes with deomcracy. Socialism is the economic system that goes with communism. So I often say "democracy/capitalism" and "communism/socialism" to represent the two systems. Many people use the words interchangeably. Though not technically correct, thats what they mean when they say it.

Editorial note: I find it pathetic that some people can't have a reaonsable discussion (arguement even) without being able to remain civil. Might that be a reflection of the type of government they advocate?

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by wuliheron
The estimated maximum population for the earth is fourteen billion.
Can I see that part in a report or something ?
Where's that figure coming from ?

Live long and prosper.

[Iacchus32]

Can you have such a thing as a true democracy without a republic? Or would that be anarchy?

[russ_watters]

Can you have such a thing as a true democracy without a republic? Yes. It is cumbersome though and not the best way to do it.Or would that be anarchy? No. Democracy means majority rule. "Pure" democracy would mean everyone votes for every law that is ever passed. There would be no president or legislature. It'd be a mess, but thats not anarcy. Anarchy is the complete absence of any government including all the functions of government such as passing laws.

[Iacchus32]

Then what is a republic if it doesn't contain any democratic elements? Would that be Fascism? What would you call the United States if it's both a Democracy and a Republic?

Perhaps "a marriage?" ... Where "the husband" wants to be fiscally responsible (a republican) and "the wife" (a democrat) thinks he's a tight-*** and wants to spend all the money?

I know it's a little over-simplified, but it sounds about right?

[wuliheron]

There are many aspects of human nature. You forget selfishness Anarchy fails because it is unstable - people will not live together in peace without laws. It is human nature to want power and eventually someone siezes it.

See what I mean about social darwinism? Next you'll be telling us human nature is responsible for all the problems in the world today and that humanity is just inherently evil like the Bible says. Anarchy thrived for millions of years before the advent of civilization.

Sociologists and anthropologists have gone over this issue with a fine tooth comb. What seems to matter most is not some innate drive people have for power, but the availability of resources. That is why groups such as the !Kung don't have a history of egomaniacs desperately seeking power. It isn't human nature, but simple survival, growth, and progress when the local resources are available that drive people to organize in repressive ways, including democratic ones.

Democracy means majority rule.

That is the definition of a mob lynching, not democracy.

Communism is similar in that it is also unstable, but it is actually LESS stable than anarchy because it requires absolute cooperation between all participants. Anarchy does not. At the very least anarchy recognizes that people are different frome each other.

Clarification (someone else touched on it): The "communism" I speak of is Marxism or "pure" communism. Various watered down forms of communism have been tried and a few have even remained stable for a while. NONE have really worked though. Not even Cuba.


I prefer to avoid such nonsensical idiological rhetoric. Marx was one philosopher who lived a century ago, who cares what he wrote other than politicians. Arguably the most communistic state in civilzed history was the ancient Greek Spartans, who were also among the fiercest of warriors (note: not intellectual idealists). Nor was their government unstable, it fit the time and place and survived for many centuries.

No government lives forever anymore than any individual lives forever. The question is whether it suits the time, place, and survival needs of the community. In this rapidly changing and violent world communism remains a viable alternative on any scale. Certainly not a pleasent one for most, more of a fall back position for larger groups when times get hard. As I have already mentioned, England during WWII is often considered the most communistic state to exist in the last century.

Also, I subscribe to the political theory of self determination: In order for a government to be "legitimate," the power MUST be derived from the PEOPLE. In practice, the ONLY form of government that meets this criteria is the various forms of democracy. Marxist communism would meet this criteria, and even complete anarchy would. But neither can actually function in REALITY. They are utopian pipe dreams.

Oh, and I suppose the Russian revolution never took place? Who do you think empowered all these communist dictators? Bozo the clown? Desperate times compell people to desperate measures, something capitalist rhetoric still seems to deny with every breath it can draw and insist that people should just "bite the bullet".

I agree that in the modern world democracy has proven the most functional of governments and that it tends to support more capitalistic economies, but that is not the same as saying it has some sort of divine mandate or reflects "human nature". What it reflects is the availability of resources, the drive for growth and progress in peoples' lives, and the practical limitations of organizing differently or living anarchistically on large scales.

It is equally important to note that most of the world enjoys a much more sociolistic government than the US where the needs of more than just the majority are taken care of. Rather than unconditionally supporting monopolies and rampant capitalism, the state owns basic services.

Editorial note: I find it pathetic that some people can't have a reaonsable discussion (arguement even) without being able to remain civil. Might that be a reflection of the type of government they advocate?

More political BS as far as I am concerned. I am talking about the realities of life, while you are obviously promoting social darwinism and political propoganda. Keep on talking, as far as I am concerned too many people in america today don't realize the difference anymore. With all the major forms of mass media and increasingly the scholarly world itself being owned by a vanishingly small percentage of the population, the internet is the only place left to find unbiased information.

Can I see that part in a report or something ?

I got that figure from Scientific American, sorry, don't remember which issue. However, you might check the UN or just do a websearch. However, I will say that is the top figure they gave with the qualification that some argued it might be lower or higher. Eight to ten billion, if I remember correctly, was what they estimated to be the max number possible without drastic changes.

[selfAdjoint]

Sociologists and anthropologists have gone over this issue with a fine tooth comb. What seems to matter most is not some innate drive people have for power, but the availability of resources. That is why groups such as the !Kung don't have a history of egomaniacs desperately seeking power. It isn't human nature, but simple survival, growth, and progress when the local resources are available that drive people to organize in repressive ways, including democratic ones.

There's been a thirty year war between leftist sociologists who conclude as you do and evolutionsts/psychometricians who emphasize inborn factors in human behavior. It is necessary to acknowledge this split when you cite "authority" for it's-not-in-our-genes conclusions about history.

[wuliheron]

There's been a thirty year war between leftist sociologists who conclude as you do and evolutionsts/psychometricians who emphasize inborn factors in human behavior. It is necessary to acknowledge this split when you cite "authority" for it's-not-in-our-genes conclusions about history.

Exactly my point, people like Malthus have been claiming since before Hitler that it is all in our genes. Blacks are innately inferior, Jews are innately greedy, and humanity is innately power hungery. F**k 'em all!!! These people are willing to stretch any scientific discovery to the extreme in support of their political and religious agendas. They don't care about "truth" or anything else for that matter. All they know is what they have been taught to hate and that the end justifies the means.

Until some serious evidence to contrary is discovered, I'll stick with the sociologists who at least haven't encouraged such people to sterilize, torture, and commit genocide!

PS- If capitalism is inherently superior to communism, it needs no defense. Especially in a world where communism has all but disappeared. What requires defense still is our innate humanity!

[securitysix]

"Kinder, gentler" are your words, not mine.

You are, of course, right. For some reason, my brain went into peacenik mode (didn't know I had a peacenik mode, learn something new every day) and decided that "good deed" and "gentle" are synonyms. They are, of course, not. A good deed is generally considered as "the right thing to do", but is not always gentle and can be percieved as unkind by some.

So, for a meritocracy to work, you would have to establish an absolute moral code, would you not? So one would have to ask how you establish a moral code. I'm sure everyone would agree that child molestation, rape, and murder are wrong, so we'd have no problem there. What about pre-marital relations? Abortion as a means of birth control?

While the idea is great, I'm not sure how one would impliment it on a global scale. I'm not sure it could be done on a national scale, either, at least not with some cultures. Go tell a Wahabist that killing the infidel is wrong, see what he says. Tell a pro choice person that abortion is not an acceptable form of birth control. Tell the Grand Dragon of the KKK or a Neo-Nazi it's wrong to hate blacks and Jews. Tell the Black Panthers that shooting whitey for keeping him down is wrong.

It's possible to do the wrong thing for the right reasons, and it makes it tough to establish a moral code. You talk of population control, and so I impose this question to you: Abortion is a functional method of population control, as is abstinance, which is right? Killing people who are above a certain age (another sci-fi story, sorry, don't remember the name) or with unbeatable diseases (AIDs, some cancers, probably others I can't think of) would ease burdens on the population, should we do this?

The problem I see with meritocracy is: "Who decides what's right?"

[wuliheron]

So, for a meritocracy to work, you would have to establish an absolute moral code, would you not? So one would have to ask how you establish a moral code. I'm sure everyone would agree that child molestation, rape, and murder are wrong, so we'd have no problem there. What about pre-marital relations? Abortion as a means of birth control?


I don't really believe you need an absolute moral code. Quite the opposite. Every democracy in the world today, as far as I know, is a constitutional democracy that periodically updates the rights of its citizens. The UN as well has worked to promote the growth of human rights worldwide. I imagine for the indefinite future this trend of evolving human rights will continue. Not necessarilly as an expression of absolute rights, but as an explicite expression of what people at the time believe everyone deserves.

While the idea is great, I'm not sure how one would impliment it on a global scale. I'm not sure it could be done on a national scale, either, at least not with some cultures. Go tell a Wahabist that killing the infidel is wrong, see what he says. Tell a pro choice person that abortion is not an acceptable form of birth control. Tell the Grand Dragon of the KKK or a Neo-Nazi it's wrong to hate blacks and Jews. Tell the Black Panthers that shooting whitey for keeping him down is wrong.

Again, this is a natural process. It's important to note that what people often have thought in the past was utterly impossible, wasn't. The wall of Berlin fell, the slaves were freed, our bitter enemies of a decade ago are now our close friends. There are many different things that fuel such transformations, just as there are many that fuel hatred.

There is an old argument about whether great men shape history or history shapes great men. Was Ghandi just the right man for the job, or was he just one of many but the one who happened to be in the right place at the right time? Such are social darwinist theories.

Obviously it happens both ways. Instead of speculating on such things, I look to nature as whole for examples of what the possibilities are. Sure, maybe meritocracy is impossible but if so I see no evidence of that. For the most part nature does not select for inflexibility, and humanity has proven very flexible indeed.

The problem I see with meritocracy is: "Who decides what's right?"

Again, the people and the situation do on an evolving basis. Democracy today is nothing like what it was in Socrates' time. For that matter, life in general isn't the same anymore. In Socrates day grown men having sex with little boys was considered normal. In the last few hundred years the human population has gone from a few million to billions. In the last twenty years starvation worldwide has been reduced from its historical level of half the population to one quarter.

Sometimes its not easy to see the forest through the trees, but it's there nonetheless. :0)

[Raavin]

Unfortunately the posting mechanism of PF3 doesn't show the whole thread so cutting and pasting is a pain. Just wanted to make a comment about the belief that all western democracies have a constitution. Australia doesn't. Thank god. What a disaster that has been in America. Not sure about others. Anyway...

To think that Anarchism can work in a large, condensed industrial society is naive to say the least. As has been said time and time again, people are just not like that. There are too many greedy people. I'm not talking really evil people, but people who can't be bothered doing good for others or not getting that extra peice of the pie when they can. Communism hasn't worked not just because of poor economic management but because the countries generally started out poor and had no goods nor the infrastructure to distribute goods and services. There are apparently parts of China that have no idea they are under communism to this day.

Marxism is a paranoid form of socialism. It implies a conspiracy on behalf of the rich against the poor. The reality is that your economic status or ethnicity has nothing to do with how much of a knob you are. Get 100 people from any demographic and I will guarantee that you will find the same amount of bad to good (no particular benchmark used).

I consider myself a socialist. I believe in state ownership of major industry. I also believe in democracy. Why democracy is always associated with capitalism is beyond me. We should be able to chose what it is we need and have the government supply it. At the same time, people need to realise that we all need to spend some time working in a job that we don't particularly enjoy, for the greater good. The pay off is knowing that when I'm shovelling sh*t, my bills are getting payed, I have housing and healthcare, my kids have a good education etc. In a capitalist society your pay is scaled by the stuff you are shoveling. Shovelin' sh*t, sh*t pay. I don't necesarrily believe in entirely equal pay. Some jobs I think require a different level of stress or hard manual labour. Restricting hours of work might be ok to equalise wages in this case but some jobs require continuity. It's not easy.

To answer the inital question. I would love to work on a project to develop a system which provides adequate goods and services to people, probably based on socialist concepts but with small scale capitalistic, highly taxed, enterprises to fill niche markets which are impracticle to cover with goverment industry and allow some creativity in employment. Capitalism works with the idea that everybody can be a millionaire. Clearly they can't, but an ideal socialist system started in a resource, infrastructure rich country could possibly feed the consumerist society so they lived like millionaires, only everyone would have to work.

Raavin [6)]

[wuliheron]

I would qualify your negative assessment of capitalism. Japan has a law on the books that no one in a company can make more than twenty times what the lowest paid worker makes. In the US we have people making more than 200 times what the lowest paid worker makes. Capitalism need not be so cut-throat. Unfortunately for the US the unions weren't as successful as they were in japan. :0)

[Raavin]

Any links to stuff about this maximum wage stuff in Japan???

Raavin [?]

[securitysix]

OK, wuliheron, you've convinced me that meritocracy COULD work. A couple more problems I have, though.

I don't think the UN should be in charge of creating any form of government, especially a meritocracy. We're talking about an organization that has put Syria in charge of their Human Rights commitee. Iraq is pretty high on the list of countries to head the Disarmament commitee (how's that for irony?).

As far as the slaves being freed, I would like to point out that Thomas Jefferson (a well known historical figure, I'm sure you'll agree), was a slave owner. This is well known. Thomas Jefferson abhorred slavery, yet participated because he felt it necessary. He also tried to treat his slaves very well, though there may be exceptions to this. He tried to get slavery outlawed in Virginia, but never tried too hard for fear of political death. Abraham Lincoln (the man credited with freeing the slaves) was also a slave owner and did not particularly care for the idea of freeing the slaves, but did so to save himself from political death. Had he not done so, many of the people in the North, who thought they were fighting to free the slaves, would have revolted against him at the ballot box. The reason Lincoln went to war with the Confederacy was that he didn't like the idea that a state or group of states could just up and say "F$*# this!" and drop out of the Union. He was trying to expand the power of the federal government while reducing the power of the states. Was he right to free the slaves? I'd say "yes". Did he do it for the right reason? I don't think so.

History is actually filled with people doing the right thing for the wrong reason. I would think that for a meritocracy to work correctly, the people in charge would have to be willing to do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do. Those folks do exist, but not in very large numbers compared to the world population. In fact, why do most people do the "right" thing? Most people will answer that question with regard to themselves as "to either receive reward or to avoid punishment".

If this is the only reason to be good, the reward would have to be good enough for the majority to strive for or the punishment would have to be so horrible as to get most people to avoid it. A balance would have to be struck between the two that would level it out to a point where people would excel on their merits without an alterior motive in mind. They would have to be striving to do good without seeking riches and without fearing retribution, otherwise, I can't see the system working. Without the right balance, greed will take over, or fear will rule, and either way, a tyrant will run things.

I'd love to see meritocracy work, and I think it can probably be worked into, but you can't dump it on people like you can a representative republic or a dictatorship and expect it to keep them in line. It will require subtle implementation and will encounter some resistance even then. I've stopped doubting it will work, I just can't forsee one totally coming into place on a large scale within my lifetime. Hopefully, I'll be wrong.

[Raavin]

About the Japan maximum wage stuff. If there is a link that would be great but I'm wondering if there was some confusion. I found this http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199394/cmhansrd/1994-10-19/Debate-1.html and I'm wondering if this is where the mix up is. It's a British parlimentary speech. Here's a snippit

"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to fix the emoluments of chairpersons, chief executives and senior managers of private limited companies and public bodies so that their combined annual earnings do not exceed twenty times the average take-home pay of their non-managerial employees save if the said employees agree through a ballot of their non- managerial employees or through their union to permit salaries of their chairpersons, chief executives and senior managers to exceed a 20:1 ratio."

It uses examples of many other countries where the ratio is lower. Japan for example is between 8 and 12 to 1.

About meritocracy, one problem is that you have to assume that the right person for the job is actually interested in it. When Israel asked Einstein to be their president, he wasn't interested. What about if you wanted a fantastic medical person to head the health department. Then they couldn't do medicine. Politics isn't a 40 hour a week job. Even if you think most politicians are morons, you have to concede that they put in 80 or more hours a week into the job. It is a lifestyle. Politicians would also argue that they are elected because of who they are and the ideals they believe in.

No. Democracy means majority rule. "Pure" democracy would mean everyone votes for every law that is ever passed. There would be no president or legislature. It'd be a mess, but thats not anarcy. Anarchy is the complete absence of any government including all the functions of government such as passing laws.

Exactly. Functional Anarchy relies on people either doing the right thing or dealing with their oen problems. So if someone does something wrong, you, or your local group 'deal with it'. Pure democracy relies on referendum. With technology today this could probably happen but the majority of people don't care about, or have the time to worry about every little law.

Just for fun, here is the start of a prescription for an ideal government.

1. There is a myth that money can't buy happiness. This is only partly true. Concerns about not being able to make ends meet causes huge problem in society. It impacts on relationships, effects health, enflames jealousy, is related to poor education etc., etc. The list goes on from there. Although money might not buy happiness, removal of the stresses caused by not having it could be eleviated so that people could work on other aspects of their lives in comfort and financial security. What does money mean though. Basically money means the ability to have housing, warmth, food, clothing, communications, transport, and a reasonable amount of what are seen a necesarry houshold goods. These days that includes TV, dvd, computer, soundsystem, microwave, furniture etc. (Using the TV as an example, the government might only produce a few sizes of plasma TV and maybe a projector, then produce a variety of covers. What would you prefer, paying hundreds of dollars for a CRT or getting say a Large and medium sized plasma screen with a choice of covers) The government of the day needs to be able to provide these things in abundance by producing them themselves. The actual cost of these things is not high and is only worth the labour invested when you exclude profit and taxes. There would also need to be scope for 'cottage industries' to fill gaps in service. These might be approved on submission of a business plan identifying these gaps just like if you were getting finance in the private sector. Pay structure might start out lower then as the business started succeeding, raised to tie in with the incentive scheme.

2. Wages. There needs to be a formula for wages. Possibly based on things like physical labour, expertise required, responsibility level etc. There also needs to be some incentives. What to do if someone decides to go into another line of work. Possibly a board or commitee of a 'factory' could vote on a financial incentive to keep someone they thought was of great value to the industry. Also providing financial incentives for quality or more efficient work. You could also give the option, where appropriate, to give the option of work sharing arrangements to reduce hours as an incentive.

3. Jobs nobody wants. Ideally you would try to create an environment where people had a choice about the work they did and the opportunity to train for other work. Where work could be replaced by machines this would be done. Where there was no choice, you would provide the incentives above.

4. Doesn't money encourage innovation. Well....I'm not so sure. Applying the incentive scheme to innovation might encourage this without the huge payout. Looking at the Open Source phenomenon, one could also assume that, given the opportunity, people will innovate and create of their own accord. Fame or notoriety, leaving a legacy that people are aware of is also encouragement. Promotion and encouragement of these achievements by the state would be important. How many scientists would be happy jsut to spend time developing different do-dads if they didn't have to worry about how they were going to pay their bills?

This is just a start. I have more bits but not the time at the moment to add them. Please comment on problems and additions.

Raavin [:D]

[wuliheron]

About meritocracy, one problem is that you have to assume that the right person for the job is actually interested in it.

Just as democracy is an evolving form of government, so are meritocracies. If you visit totalitarian countries, you will often find the people have not the slightest real concept or attitude of civic duty. Politics often runs in families, and to a great extent it is these family and cultural values that can promote meritocracy.

Anarchy is the complete absence of any government including all the functions of government such as passing laws.

Anarchy simply means "no rulers", not the total absence of government. Consensual decision making, for example, is a form of anarchy. Just as no country is perfectly democratic, capitalistic, communistic, etc. none could be perfectly anarchistic, but you can incorporate anarchistic elements. Whether or not this can achieved on a large scale remains to be seen.

Doesn't money encourage innovation.

The growing phenomenon, again, is barter trade. Instead of exchanging money, you exchange goods and services. This can leave out the middle men and save time. The pop up advertisements at this website are a good example in barter trade. Whether you support the website directly by buying the cd or not, you support it by putting up with the popup ads. Likewise, the same is true of my email account, and other free online services. They represent a form of barter trade, my time and attention in trade for the service.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Anarchy simply means "no rulers", not the total absence of government. Consensual decision making, for example, is a form of anarchy. Just as no country is perfectly democratic, capitalistic, communistic, etc. none could be perfectly anarchistic, but you can incorporate anarchistic elements. Whether or not this can achieved on a large scale remains to be seen. No. "no rulers" is the literal latin root, not the definition (though they are similar). Anarchy means "Absence of any form of political authority." ANY political authority.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchy
Anarchy is an absolute, democracy is not. Certainly there are watered down versons of democracy (the US for example is a representative democracy) but you can't water down nothing. "Consentual decision making" is a weak form of government. But since it is a form of government and not the absence of government, it is not anarchy. And actaully, even if you want to use the literal latin root, "consensual decision making" means the parties that consent to the decision are the rulers. Therefore "no rulers" still applies. Its not anarchy.

I'm not suggesting that you are an anarchist, but many anarchists misuse the word which causes confusion for the rest of us. If you look into some actual "anarchist" ideas, they look a lot more like communism than anything else.

[wuliheron]

No. "no rulers" is the literal latin root, not the definition (though they are similar). Anarchy means "Absence of any form of political authority." ANY political authority.


Sorry, but as an Anarchist myself I can't agree. This is the biased modern western definition of the term. When discussing politics it is difficult to say the least to find unbiased histories and definitions. The winners in any conflict tend to re-write the histories, spin their opponents in the worst light possible, and all the other things that make politics so infamous as an unattractive way to make a living. You are welcome to insist these people and myself are all deluding ourselves and not really anarchists, but that is just so much political nonsense.

The definition I present here is the one many anarchists themselves use, both in socialist and capitalist countries. Anarchy was a major political movement in the US a century ago, most notably among the suffragetts, but due to bad publicity and politics as usual, became associated with anti-social, violent acts aimed at destroying any kind of order. Today in the west it's sentiments, organization, and political thought can still be most clearly seen in the Feminist movement.

Among communists, anarchists are the extreme liberal end of the spectrum. Usually they support the communistic version of Jeffersonian Demoncracy. Jefferson's idea was to shape america as a country of predominantly gentleman middle class farmers with as little interference as possible from the federal government. The communist anarchist version is communal rather than being geared towards individual family farms.

[Raavin]

Main Entry: an·ar·chism
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-"ki-z&m, -"när-
Function: noun
Date: 1642
1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kist, -"när-
Function: noun
Date: 1678
1 : one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2 : one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order

From the Anarchist FAQ page http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/

"While there are many different types of anarchism (from individualist anarchism to communist-anarchism ... , there has always been two common positions at the core of all of them -- opposition to government and opposition to capitalism."

I am not totally against decentralised power, but where does anarchy that you are talking about end, and socialism start. Who is it that takes care of disputes? One might say that local groups deal with it, but if my brother lives in your group and is dealt with in a way that my group disagrees with you start to have problems. I can't see any way around having at least some sort of concensus on basic principles. Even if this is just some sort of constitution. Also, how do you arrange public services and manufacturing. If one group starts a factory making widgits and widgits become a popular or even necessary item, how do you stop them selling them at inflated prices and turning into capitalism. What about people who don't want to or can't work? Who supports them? What about specialisation? One of the advantages of being able to sell your labour, which it seems Anarchy disagrees with, is that you can specialise. What about health care, public transport? There are a million different reasons why this seems impossible on the large scale.

I imagine you might end up with groups deciding to make local laws anyway and virtually split the land up into seperate 'countries' which might end up warring against each other over beliefs. If you want true 'freedom', you would have to allow this to happen in groups who agreed on it, there would also be no-one to stop them. Anarchism by your definition can work in small communities I suppose. But a commune of people who have all come together because of common interests and beliefs is not the same as society.

I'm not trying to be negative here. I suppose I personally just believe in centralised government which encourages free, non-violent expression and where all participants have safety and an equal go, no matter what part of society you come from. I just can't see how a libertarian/anarchy model can cater for this.

Raavin [:(]

[wuliheron]

1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups


Being an advocate for cooperation is not the same thing as being against government or rulers for that matter. This Anarchist FAQ page you found is more biased political nonsense advocating the position that "Either you are with us or you are against us." Such people give anarchy a bad name imo, and demonstrate just how badly other political parties have trashed out the anarchist movement in the west.

People have lived anarchistically and cooperatively since prehistoric times. Usually in small tribal groups of less than fifteen, but sometimes in isolated communes of up to a thousand. These people were not against government, they simply had no need for rulers.

There is a wonderful example of this in the movie "The Emerald Forest." In the movie a white boy is kidnapped by a Yanamamo like tribe in Brazil. His father finds him ten years or so later about to marry a girl in the tribe. At one point he turns to the chief and demands that he tell his son he has to come back to civilization with him. The chief laughs his head off and asks him, "How could I be chief if I told a grown man what to do?"

Such "chiefs" are not rulers. They are given the title as a recognition of their wisdom and the need for a focual point for the group. Native American tribes, for example, would have seperate honorary chiefs for war, for peace, etc. If attacked everyone looked to the chief of war for directions in how to fight back. Not because they had to according to some abstract rule, but for mutual survival and out of recognition and respect for that individual's tactical and fighting skills.

Where do you draw the line indeed. Anarchy is a flexible arrangment and can fade into and out of having rulers. Sociologists have shown that somewhere around three hundred people is when groups become prone to fascism. It is difficult for everyone to know each other well and the temptation to govern by force instead of cooperation can then arise according to the situation.

In the case of isolated agrarian communes and small tribal groups such pressures are nonexistent. Instead of hard and fast rules for everything they have traditions and often these are very flexible traditions. One generation may interpret their religious myths literally and believe ghosts are wandering through the woods while the next generation could interpret all those myths figurately and be composed of largely rational atheists. That is the advantage of Anarchy, it is incredibly flexible and adaptable to the individual. Thus it can inspire incredible loyalty.

For small tribal goups, often this means if one person in the group just doesn't seem to be temperamentally and idiologically in tune with the rest of the group they will leave and join another one. Again, not merely because they might feel they have no choice, but because that kind of profound agreement and cooperation is what they want more than anything.

I remember an interview with a woman from a Yanamamo like tribe who married an anthropologiest and moved to NY city with him. The reporters asked her what it was like going from the stone age to the modern world. She said she liked cars, tv, fast food, and whatnot but what really shocked her was the loneliness.

Her first image of a crowded NY city street defied all expectations. She had grown up with the same thirty people her entire life perhaps seeing one stranger a year. In NY she saw thousands of people crowded onto the streets, yet all looking lonely. Something she herself had seldom experienced.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Sorry, but as an Anarchist myself I can't agree. This is the biased modern western definition of the term. When discussing politics it is difficult to say the least to find unbiased histories and definitions. The winners in any conflict tend to re-write the histories, spin their opponents in the worst light possible, and all the other things that make politics so infamous as an unattractive way to make a living. You are welcome to insist these people and myself are all deluding ourselves and not really anarchists, but that is just so much political nonsense.

The definition I present here is the one many anarchists themselves use, both in socialist and capitalist countries. Last I checked, we live in the modern western world. Though it may be convenient to ignore the commonly accepted definition of a word in favor of one that sounds better to your particular group, you are not at liberty to do that. Definitions are the groundrules in any discussion. You can't arbitrarily change them to suit your needs. And quite frankly, I see very little difference between the "no rulers" root and the currently accepted definition.

examples:
Hmm, I don't like the currently accepted definition of the word "camel" so from now on, I'm going to call all camels "dogs." Is that acceptable? Any reason to think that might cause a little confusion?

PRC. 'nuff said.

Stick with the dictionary definition and find another word to describe your cause that actually fits it.

[drag]

" The major problem - one of the major problems, for there are several - one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get
people to let them do it to them.

To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

And so this is the situation we find: a succession of Galactic Presidents who so much enjoy the fun and palaver of being in power that they very rarely notice that they're not. And somewhere in the shadows behind them - who?

Who can possibly rule if no one who wants to do it can be allowed to? "
Douglas Adams

[wuliheron]

Last I checked, we live in the modern western world. Though it may be convenient to ignore the commonly accepted definition of a word in favor of one that sounds better to your particular group, you are not at liberty to do that. Definitions are the groundrules in any discussion.


By your reasoning all Native Americans should have settled for being called "Indians", Blacks should have settled for being called negroes and other derrogatory terms, etc. I am what I am and if you can't respect that I will continue protesting. Words have meaning because people agree to and respect those meanings, not because the few who publish the most dictionaries win by default. Nor does the majority decide the issue for everyone. Like many other disenfrachized minorities Anarchists today are once again reclaiming their heritage that was stolen from them by powerful white corporate interests.

[drag]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Sorry, but as an Anarchist myself...
Who could've guessed ?! [:D]

[wuliheron]

Who could've guessed ?!

LOL, these fools who insist on stealing everyone's heritage couldn't have guessed. They'd insist on calling me a communist or somesuch, insist that communism is a form of government but capitalism isn't, and insist that it just makes more practical sense to use derrogatory terms to describe minorities.

My sister Nell just got bit by a rat,
And whities on the moon...
Playing golf.

[Raavin]

Firstly, Douglas Adams should be declared a prophet.

Secondly, Are you agreeing then that in large scale communities, Anarchy may not be a reasonable form of government?

Thirdly,
By your reasoning all Native Americans should have settled for being called "Indians", Blacks should have settled for being called negroes and other derrogatory terms, etc.

Interesting point only they weren't originally meant to be derrogatory terms. I believe that, Native Americans were called Indians because they thought they had landed in India. The term just stuck. Africans were called Negroes because that was the generic term for the African races and was later transformed into the more unpleasant version because of mispronunciation. When new, more appropriate terms were coined, Native American and African-American, they were used instead. In Australia we are still struggling and use Indigenous Australian, Aborigine and Koori although strictly speaking Kooris are from only a small part of Australia. There are so many different tribes and languages that to generalise and lump people into one group seems somehow condescending. I'm sure the same things apply to Indigenous or Native Americans.

How does this relate to the use of the word Anarchist? What is being said is that it is important that everyone is clear on a definition of the word. If Anarcho-socialist is a better discription of the way you live then that should probably be used rather than just straight Anarchist. Look at the dates on the definitions and you'll see that they have been around for quite a while. Pre suffregette, even pre Industrial. That said, it's interesting to note that in the original draft of the Websters (I think??) dictionary, that a whole lot of definitions were actually submitted by a guy who was locked up in an Asylum. There's a book about it.

I'm a huge fan of the type of Communal-Anarchistic lifestyle you are talking about. I just think it ends up being a bit exclusionist. In a larger context I think it's important to be inclusive and have a safety net for people who don't 'fit in' to the bigger picture. I work in the welfare field supporting marginalised people and it's hard enough when there are services set up. Not to have any sort of organised mechanisms for them would be a nightmare.

Raavin [:D]

[wuliheron]

Firstly, Douglas Adams should be declared a prophet.

No! Not that! A treasure maybe, but not a prophet! Already the Jedi from Star Wars have now been turned into an official religion! If you turn Douglas Adams into a prophet all the humor will be lost!

Secondly, Are you agreeing then that in large scale communities, Anarchy may not be a reasonable form of government?


Well yeah, not in today's world that's for sure. Maybe in some far flung future.

Interesting point only they weren't originally meant to be derrogatory terms.

Some weren't but became used as derrogatory terms anyway. Others like the word "nigger" were deliberately so. A nigger is a common grub worm in the south, considered the lowest form of life on earth.

What is being said is that it is important that everyone is clear on a definition of the word. If Anarcho-socialist is a better discription of the way you live then that should probably be used rather than just straight Anarchist.

The "anarcho-" part is just Anarchist abreviated. In addition, I live in an Anarcho-socialist commune, but I am not a socialist. I'm an Anarchist.

Look at the dates on the definitions and you'll see that they have been around for quite a while. Pre suffregette, even pre Industrial. That said, it's interesting to note that in the original draft of the Websters (I think??) dictionary, that a whole lot of definitions were actually submitted by a guy who was locked up in an Asylum. There's a book about it.


Suddenly the dictionary makes a great deal more sense (LOL).

I'm not arguing that the common use of the word Anarchy should change, I am arguing that it is also the name of a political orientation. There are Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Libertarians, Anarchists, and people of all sorts of political persuasions. Sure, some Anarchists advocate violent overthrow of the government, but then a lot of Libertarians are socialists as well. What of it? Anarchy remains a politically viable term that describes a broad spectrum of people more clearly than any other words you can come up with.

I'm a huge fan of the type of Communal-Anarchistic lifestyle you are talking about. I just think it ends up being a bit exclusionist. In a larger context I think it's important to be inclusive and have a safety net for people who don't 'fit in' to the bigger picture. I work in the welfare field supporting marginalised people and it's hard enough when there are services set up. Not to have any sort of organised mechanisms for them would be a nightmare.


Believe me, we are preforming a social service function.

Rather than being exclusionary the secular communes I know have rather open doors. One woman I know worked for a company for fifteen years only to have the vice-president run off with everyone's retirement fund (Can you say Enron, etc.) She was left out in the cold, moved to the commune, and became the most vitrolic advocate of socialism I hope to ever come across.

Sure, it ain't as well organized as a big government social program but then, the government ain't doing such things now are they. No.... they're helping to raise the rent and drive people out on the streets. Encouraging white collar criminals like at Enron, and then talking tough rhetoric after they've raped tens of millions of people. Keeping the minimum wage to an all time low in forty years and then kicking everybody off welfare.

As usual, often you have to do an end run around government for the sake of survival if nothing else. The salt of the earth have to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and remember their origins.

[Raavin]

I must admit that it's only going on anacdotal evidence but I can see how living in America could make any normal person take the Anarchist (by your definition) line. It would seem to be a case of Capitalism gone crazy.

In Australia, although 'economic rationalism' has dented it a bit, social services here are not bad. Rents have doubled over the last 5 or so years and social services benefits have not increased accordingly, but most people who have a social network can make ends meet. We also have a fairly good public health system and services, like the one I work in, funded by the government. I work with homeless young people with a variety of different issues and I'm not sure how those people would be serviced in an anarchist society.

The original question was

Question: Is there a better way we have not yet used? Another form of government that we have not come up with.

I'm not sure if there are any truly 'new' ones, but I think th point of the question was to try to come up with something that 'works' better on a large scale.

I don't have the solutions but maybe all of us, working together could put something together. You don't necesarrily have to believe fully in every aspect but I think the key is being willing to compromise for the greater good. I'd be very interested in trying a project like this.

Raavin [;)]

[wuliheron]

I'm not sure if there are any truly 'new' ones, but I think th point of the question was to try to come up with something that 'works' better on a large scale.


Yeah, I never proposed Anarchy as a large scale alternative. I proposed meritocracy. Representative Democracies, Fascism, and Socialism all have their altogether too human limitations and are reaching the extreme limits at which they function.

Modern technology is just too complex and already we are seeing the emergence of fascist Technocracies. Some of these have proven themselves, but most have failed. In no small part due to the winner take all capitalist economy that rules the world economy today. As I already wrote, 9-11 was a wake-up call that the rest of the world will not allow itself to be bullied and exploited in this capitalist economy by big interests. The only viable alternative in the long run is meritocracy, rule by the good deed doers.

[Raavin]

Mmmmmm. OK. No further discussion needed then?? ...Don't think so. This is a summary of what I think is needed.

Find out what the people need
Find out what the people want
Figure out how to supply it
Figure out how to administer it

Simple [;)]

Raavin [:D]

[wuliheron]

Find out what the people need
Find out what the people want
Figure out how to supply it
Figure out how to administer it

Simple


LOL, what the people need and want are not always compatable nor is supplying a administering it usually simple. Unless, of course, you are suggesting we all go back to more primitive hunter gatherer and agrarian lifestyles. :0)

. Inaction

Not praising the worthy prevents contention,
Not esteeming the valuable prevents theft,
Not displaying the beautiful prevents desire.
In this manner the sage helps people
To help themselves:
Empty their minds,
Fill their bellies,
Weakening their egos,
And strengthen their bones.
If people lack abstract
knowledge and compulsions
Then their egos will not act;
If their egos do not act
Happiness is retained.

[Raavin]

I don't agree. Needs and wants are different I admit but somewhere in there lies the majority of things that, as far as material possessions and services go, I think you can fit most in. Like I said, some things you need to compromise on. We already supply and administer most of these things to an extent just the need stuff isn't enough and the want stuff is owned by capitalists.

About the other bit. I've read the Tao Te Ching too. Like most things of philosophical/religious I find some stuff that is good and some stuff that is bad. The bible, the Koran, different buddhist texts, all suffer from the same affliction. This one I don't agree with, unless it is meant to be sarcastic.

Here is another translation

Not praising the worthy prevents contention,
Not esteeming the valuable prevents theft,
Not displaying the beautiful prevents desire.

In this manner the sage governs people:
Emptying their minds,
Filling their bellies,
Weakening their ambitions,
And strengthening their bones.

If people lack knowledge and desire
Then they can not act;
If no action is taken
Harmony remains.

...just for interests sake.

It actually reminds me of a bit of a part in the Koran when one of Mohammeds desciples (is that the term??) says that their women are going off tap and mohammed says that they should go home and sort them out. Maybe if Mohammed hadn't given women their rights, to not be treated like the slaves of men, to have the right of inheritance and start women thinking like they had any rights at all, there wouldn't have been any problem in the first place. But he gave them something that was rightfully theirs and the women felt like they had some control. Mohammed probably, wasn't trying to take back what he had given them, or say that it was OK to beat women. It could be interpreted that he wanted peace and the result of what he had done was unexpected. That's how people work though. You can't keep people in ignorance just so they don't desire. You have to put all old texts in the context of the time. I'm an athiest, but if Mohammed was really the prophet of god and saw that some people had not progressed any further in creating peace and equality in the world, I'm sure he'd be pissed. I'm sure the same could probably be said of Lao Tse. Siddhartha Gautama, being a spoiled rich kid that abandoned his wife and child 'cause life got a bit too real and never lifted a finger for the rest of his life, I'm not so sure about.

This one's probably applicable to the Anarchic topic

Let your community be small, with only a few people;
Keep tools in abundance, but do not depend upon them;

Appreciate your life and be content with your home;
Sail boats and ride horses, but don't go too far;
Keep weapons and armour, but do not employ them;
Let everyone read and write,
Eat well and make beautiful things.

Live peacefully and delight in your own society;
Dwell within cock-crow of your neighbours,
But maintain your independence from them.

and this to the socialist

Honest people use no rhetoric;
Rhetoric is not honesty.
Enlightened people are not cultured;
Culture is not enlightenment.
Content people are not wealthy;
Wealth is not contentment.

So the sage does not serve himself;
The more he does for others, the more he is satisfied;
The more he gives, the more he receives.
Nature flourishes at the expense of no one;
So the sage benefits all men and contends with none.

Raavin [:))]

[wuliheron]

I should have guessed an Aussie would know the Tao Te Ching.

I'm Agnostic myself, like most Philosophical Taoists. I agree, most of the basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, etc. can be met for the vast majority of humanity and even a great deal of peoples desires. I didn't post that poem to suggest that a meritocracy should keep people pig ignorant, I don't really interpret it that way. Sages inspire us to focus on what is important and meaningful through the example of their lives.

Likewise a Meritocracy could be arranged so. How many people today really admire politicians? A vanishly small percentage of the population if you ask me. Oh, we might approve of the job they do and maybe even admire some of their abilities, but how many people actually think of politicians as wise, compassionate, and humble?

Where I live in the US people don't want politicians like that for the most part, they want tough guys who are fighters. Clever hard liners who can win their fights for them. As the world grows ever smaller at an ever accelerating pace such selfishness and aggression is becoming rapidly unsupportable. It will either fade into the wind like a forgotten bad dream or cause its own demise. If you think the last hundred years or so were full of surprising changes, you ain't seen nothin' yet. :0)

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by wuliheron
By your reasoning all Native Americans should have settled for being called "Indians", Blacks should have settled for being called negroes and other derrogatory terms, etc. I am what I am and if you can't respect that I will continue protesting. Words have meaning because people agree to and respect those meanings, not because the few who publish the most dictionaries win by default. Nor does the majority decide the issue for everyone. Like many other disenfrachized minorities Anarchists today are once again reclaiming their heritage that was stolen from them by powerful white corporate interests. Heh, most people still DO call "Native Americans" (an oxymoron btw) Indians. It doesn't matter if they like it or not, thats the commonly accepted definition. Certainly definitions can and do change over time. And the people who publish dictionaries don't decide what words mean they look at how people actually use the words. You have that backwards. You are welcome to attempt to get the definition of "anarchy" changed to something more convenient to you. In the meantime, I'll use the accepted definition.

Your last sentence there borders on conspiracy theory. It is not surprising to me at all that many if not most people who call themselves "anarchists" subscribe to such conspiracy theories.

You may be a member of a group that calls themselves "anarchists" but you are not an anarchist any more than the People's Republic of China is a republic.

[RageSk8]

Russ, read anarchist theory, anarchy centers around how people organize themseleves. The vast majority of people think that anarchy equates to radical libertarianism - this is simply false. All classic anarchists are against capitalism, at least the type fo capitalism we have now. Two famous living American anarchists: Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn.




No to be off topic:
Just because Native Americans and Black Panthers were mentioned, I will take this chance to link to research on COINTELPRO (how the FBI wipped their asses, and still probably do, with the US constitution):
On the American Indian Movement:
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/copap7a.htm
On the Black Liberation Movement (a lot on illegal actions agains the Black Panthers as well as Martin Luther King Jr.):
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/copap5a.htm

[wuliheron]

RageSk8, I believe you are talking to closed ears. The whiteman's burden, communist manifesto, etc. is alive and well. No autrocity is beyond justification for such people. Genocide, racism, slavery, etc. are all justifiable for such people as part of fighting the good fight and destroying evil in the world. Of course, that they profit in the process is merely a secondary consideration and the rest of us are just spinning conspiracy theories.

This, as I keep asserting, is rapidly changing. No longer is it quite so easy to pick out friend from foe as the war in Iraq demonstrates so well. There ain't nobody home but us chickens. Centuries of progress have thankfully made the possibility of killing them all and letting God sort them out untenable for the most powerful nations at least. If nothing else, such "reasoning" turned back onto itself defeats itself. I find it ironic and humorous that today from its lofty pearch as the undisputed king of the hill the US now condems such things while still fighting the good fight against evil and expanding its hold on the world's resourcs.

In the end, the nature always leads back to harmony.

[RageSk8]

Yeah, but I think liberal democratic ideals still have a shot at reverseing the current. With all honestly, not in my lifetime (and I am 18), but hopefully sometime. This may be misguided romanticism about the power of knowledge, we in the subversive left may be quixotic fools, but we can't change. Noam Chomsky has said he would doubt his own historical and political studies if they were mainstream, common topics of the media. When a view becomes dominant it does so in justification for the dominant classes. Studying history always shocks me - learning how elite buisnessmen and intellectuals in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s started a massive campaign to "manufacture consent" in the masses with the documented co-support of American and British political powerhouses, all under the Madisonian docterin that those without prooperty and have no chance to get property have no right and are too stupid to be given political power presiding over property. The USA, and all Western democracies, is best characterized as politically controlled by those own the land and resources. This is a world where the common man's power is to vote for a candidate out of a predetermined pool, all of who are loyal to the same Multinationals, legitimizing the complete control the elite have in government. If one looks at the structure of American politics, who controls what and how, America is just as fascist as Nazi Germany (we just don't kill nearly as many people, but who we targeted for extermination was strikingly similar under J. Edgar Hoover's FBI). Reading books by powerful and infludential intellectuals and politicians of the past actually talk about "constructing and selling the myth of capitalism" to the American public is amazing, amazing in the blatent evidence available and the incredibly small spread of its recognition. Last thing I learned that I did not know before: JFK, contrary to what you would learn in school, opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, going as far as to both send VP Johnson to europe because he "was too pro civil rights" and sicking Hoover's terrorists (FBI agents) on the Washington demonstrations.

[arivero]

Someone read Ursula Le Guin's "The Dispossessed"? It could help.

[wuliheron]

we in the subversive left may be quixotic fools, but we can't change.

Doesn't sound very progressive to me. Sounds like as conservative a statement as any I've ever heard. Conservatives often argue that people are inherently bad and can't change, thus you need to be tough and hard line with them. Some innane editorialist for newsweek once wrote that the sad fate of today's liberals is to become tomorrow's conservatives.

Perhaps the reality of the situation is different then from what moral viewpoints suggest. Like science and logic, moral viewpoints by definition have limits and are causally oriented. They obey the law of the excluded middle. Thus they provide wonderful tools with which to approach life, but by no means describe everything we can observe. When we forget or deny they are just tools and begin to identify ourselves with them, we sacrafice our own freedom and ability to use other tools.

We also sacrafice some of our humanity, if not on a social level, on a more personal one. Thus, we become what we hate the most.

[Raavin]

We also sacrifice some of our humanity, if not on a social level, on a more personal one. Thus, we become what we hate the most.

I agree. The reality is that as we get older we do become more conservative and more resigned to the ways of the world. Our ideas change and sometimes I think we start to see some sense in things we once thought were stupid. I'm trying not to do that too much but I must admit it is happening to me. 'Compromise' is often used in a context which insinuates a negative eg to compromise your beliefs, but compromise is about accepting that everything that we believe personally is not necesarrily the only or correct way. I had a look at the Tao Te Ching translation I have at home (penguin classics, I believe it is one of the best translations available. Not so poetic but a more direct and significant translation than others) and the last chapter, 81, that I mentioned (I think??) starts,

Truthful words are not beautiful,
Beautiful words are not the truth.
Persuasive words are not enlightened,
Enlightened words are not persuasive.
etc.

I haven't got it with me, so I can't remember the rest, but one way of interpreting it is that Lao Tse is saying, don't listen to me, just do the best you can for others and the rest will fall into place. As far as politics goes, I suppose that I think that it relates to the element of reasonable compromise for the greater good.

The quote that you mentioned also has heaps more text which makes it clearer and more complicated at the same time [g)] .

Raavin [;)]

[GlamGein]

These postings are abhorrent. Liberalism and idealism are not quixotic, nor are they futile.
Conservatives easily wield their power to control the weaker. I assume that the people here in these forums are bright people, so why are you so depressed? YOU can make a difference in the world. Conservative rhetoric may make you believe that your actions would be futile, but they are not. Believe in yourselves, AND your ideals, and you will see that they DO make a change in the world. Instead of dreaming of whatever you dream, do something about it.

[wuliheron]

The English language just cannot convey the Tao Te Ching in any single translation. Most say you need to seriously study at least six to ten distinct versions in order to understand the text. The older the version, the more true to its original sentiment and the less distorted by society and politics. Just like people, ancient wisdom can also become more conservative in its old age. :9(

[Raavin]

Liberalism and idealism are not quixotic, nor are they futile.

Agree completely. I don't think that was what was being said.

Conservatives easily wield their power to control the weaker.

This may be a bit pedantic, but, think about this comment for a moment. Conservative just means keeping the status quo. Given an 'ideal' government, unwillingness to change would make them conservative.

I would like to change the way that currently Capitalist governments are run. I consider myself a socialist, but I never met a socialist I liked. Most are conservative marxist, exclusionist, elitist snobs more interested in making themselves seem like heroes to the 'weaker' people you speak of than actually creating change. This is a gross generalisation I know, but it has been my personal experience with 'socialists'.

What I am suggesting, and I think it is the topic of the thread, is that we need to find an arrangement that doesn't exclude people but allows people to have all the benefits that a system can provide. It's not about just chastising the rich ad nausium, but providing a platform where human needs and desires can be met in a realistic way. By that I mean realising that people, by and large, do have desires beyond what is truly required for the sustainance of life.

In order to achieve justice, we need to be able to compromise to come to some agreement about what justice actually is. I haven't totally given up on changing the world. I just have other things on my plate at the moment. Right now I'm trying to change my little bit of the world, bringing up my son in a way I feel is right. In my work I do personal advocacy for the 'weak' and work toward policy change within the current government. I don't latch onto flavour of the month causes. I work on things that I see effecting the people I work with.

What I would like to do in my lifetime is to create, or be involved in creating, a governmental model or blueprint which incorporates a socialistic style which provides for all people the means to exist with an increased standard of living. To me, that means a coordinated government which provides a platform for eradication of poverty, safety, liberty etc. and encompasses all people. I don't believe in class struggle. People are people and all have a desire to maintain a standard of living, I would like to think, not deliberately at the expense of others. Do people specifically want to be richer than their neighbour?? I honestly don't think so for the majority. I just think that people have the right to not have to worry about the financial problems that the current systems have brought about. People have enough to contend with. The bare minimums like food, shelter, warmth, healthcare, education and safety should be expected everywhere in the world and governments should be responsible for providing them on a global level. People also need to give their share to make sure it happens. You need to be given the opportunity though by having access to meaningful work. The reason I don't entirely agree with the Anarchist line is that I believe that to recieve the benefits you need to give back to the system. Often that means in ways which may be a compromise to your own beliefs. That becomes difficult. I am a vegetarian. I wouldn't work in the meat industry. I would rather starve. But, I would hope that in a sytem set up for understanding that there would be some scope for differences. That's the key though isn't it. You can't please all of the people all of the time, but I believe that you can please most of the people to an extent that they think that the benefits of the compromise outweigh the negatives.

Raavin [:))]

[wuliheron]

In order to achieve justice, we need to be able to compromise to come to some agreement about what justice actually is.

This is a central issue, the dichotomy of justice and government. To govern is to stear or limit, as in setting the course for a ship of state. However, a captain stearing a ship does not depend upon classical Aristotlelian logic alone. Neither does justice, but all astractions of national government articulated to date, that I know of, do.

To create a truly new government then, is not merely a question of shuffling the deck. It is more pointedly a question of inspiring and making popular new concepts that transend the old. "Freedom" was a popular theme in the creation of the american government, for example, even though freedom in an increasingly dangerous, polluted, and resource strapped world is beginning to sound insane to many. At the time it was proposed, however, it was radical and refreshing and it has proven durable even in the face of the more unpleasent realities of life such as I have just mentioned.

Thus, if you are to help create a more responsive and socialist world, it must have a motto or central theme, or concept around which it inspires organization. You can modify the already existing themes if you want, or get really creative. Both approaches are time honored, but the creative is of course the more risky. :0)

[Raavin]

Anyone notice a couple of people here can't seem to talk without treating others as though they are stupid? Since when is assuming the position of an arrogant jerk a valid argument?

I'll be paranoid for a moment and assume one of those people is me. If that's the case then I apologise for giving that impression. It certainly hasn't been my aim. As far as the 'arrogant jerk' bit goes, I can see that if you feel I have treated people as stupid that you would reach that conclusion. Again, sorry 'bout that. I've tried to be honest about my own views and honestly don't believe I've treated others as stupid. I've actually made strong comments on people doing that before in other threads so I try my hardest to avoid just that. I will try to be extra mindful of it.

Raavin [:))]

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Raavin
I'll be paranoid for a moment and assume one of those people is me. If that's the case then I apologise for giving that impression. It certainly hasn't been my aim. As far as the 'arrogant jerk' bit goes, I can see that if you feel I have treated people as stupid that you would reach that conclusion. Again, sorry 'bout that. I've tried to be honest about my own views and honestly don't believe I've treated others as stupid. I've actually made strong comments on people doing that before in other threads so I try my hardest to avoid just that. I will try to be extra mindful of it.

LOL Raavin! I worried sincere participants would be the first to take blame. I would never criticize someone for being passionate, or even angry occasionally. That's a sign you are still alive and care.

After thinking about it, I decided if no one here is bothered by anyone's demeanor, then why should I stick my nose in. I apologize for interfering.

[Raavin]

Phew!!, well if it's not about me, then that's a different story. Let's get the bastards!!!!

Hehehehe [<:)]

The comments of the author of this post may not actually reflect the beliefs of the author

[wuliheron]

After thinking about it, I decided if no one here is bothered by anyone's demeanor, then why should I stick my nose in. I apologize for interfering.

That's politics for you. Every politician criticizes the others for criticizing them. I still don't understand why a political thread is on the philosophy bulletin board. Kerrie evidently has more of a sense of humor than I gave her credit for. :0)

[RageSk8]

Doesn't sound very progressive to me. Sounds like as conservative a statement as any I've ever heard. Conservatives often argue that people are inherently bad and can't change, thus you need to be tough and hard line with them. Some innane editorialist for newsweek once wrote that the sad fate of today's liberals is to become tomorrow's conservatives.

Well, my point was that we are far from being in a position to make the major changes needed. We are in a daunting situation. By saying "we can't change", I should have said "we shouldn't change". I was getting at we must first recognize the situation, a situation far bigger than most would like to admit. We must then look for solutions. No practical, pragmatic solutions for the big problems, no course of action has been found. This leaves the liberal with one option: continue exposing lies and corruption, organizing groups and voting blocks, staging demonstrations, writing books, and what not.

These postings are abhorrent. Liberalism and idealism are not quixotic, nor are they futile.

Well, I hate to say that you may be wrong, but I agree with the rest of your post. Acting is exactly what liberals do and what I said "we couldn't change". It is part of knowing our faults. We simply do not have the economic or political structures in place to make large scale changes. Any attempt, any movement, if violently attacked by the FBI in America. Even after COINTELPRO was revealed, the FBI continued to actively seek out and "neutralize" political dissidents. The majority of liberals today live in a fantasy world. Just think back to Clinton, NATO and Yugoslavia. The liberal press praised NATO and Clinton for helping Yugoslavia become more humanitarian. Speeches at NATO condemned all human rights violations. Liberals wrote essays proclaiming change was happening. A few intellectuals became sick to their stomachs - people like Noam Chomsky knew and wrote about what was going on in Yugoslavia. Just weeks before the NATO conference heralded by the liberal press, NATO helped Yugoslavia bomb the Kurds. US supplied F-16s destroyed hundreds of villages. Tens of thousands Kurds were killed and 2-3 million refugees were created. This to a people who were not actively violent. Sure are great times we live in! Dissident voices are censored non-violently – they simply are denied any way to reach the mainstream.

[wuliheron]

Sure are great times we live in! Dissident voices are censored non-violently – they simply are denied any way to reach the mainstream.

As communism has fallen the capitalist world has become less free in many respects and human rights violations in the "free" world have increased. The war in Iraq has demonstrated this pattern dramatically. Ten years ago when the US attacked Iraq it made the unprecidented move of banning all cameras and reporters. A "free" country without a free press. Now because of competition from news groups like Algazeera american reporters are all over Iraq attempting to spin the story in a very different light.

This is how western science and philosophy are thought to have originated as well. Three thousand years ago criticizing the Greek religion with it's bizarre pantheon of gods was punishable by death. Instead of directly criticizing the religion then, people began inventing one rediculous metaphysics after another to highlight the absurdity of the situation.

Eventually, this trend taken to its extreme led to the creation of formal logic based upon the idea of the absurd. That is, based on the idea that some things just do not make any sense whatsoever.

Progressives have been cast for years in the west as absurd, but now the tables are turning. It is becoming increasingly difficult for conservative agendas to avoid being cast in an absurd light. After the US is through stamping out the bigger snake nests it has helped to create and all the animosity it is currently engendering at home and abroad comes home to roost, just how absurd and counter productive the conservative agenda is will become self-evident.

Even the capitalist mass media won't be able to avoid pointing out the absurdity of the situation. The absurdity of a "free" country without a free press, with the largest prison population in the world, with the worst human rights record in the developed world, with a scandalous voting system, and with a great deal of opposition from the rest of the free world.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Ten years ago when the US attacked Iraq it made the unprecidented move of banning all cameras and reporters. A "free" country without a free press. Now because of competition from news groups like Algazeera american reporters are all over Iraq attempting to spin the story in a very different light. So when there are very few reporters, its suppression of the free press, but when there are a lot of reporters its spin? Gee, I guess we really can have it both ways.

[wuliheron]

So when there are very few reporters, its suppression of the free press, but when there are a lot of reporters its spin? Gee, I guess we really can have it both ways.



Oh no, there were just as many reporters in both cases, they just weren't allowed in on the action in the first war. I remember watching Brian Gumble interview a Harvard professor of constitutional law during the first Gulf war. Having nothing else to do, the reporters were interviewing everyone who might have something meaningful to say.

Anyway, at the end of the interview Gumble did what reporters are prone to do, he threw a zinger at the guy. Quite clearly and forcefully he rhetorically asked if the US was becoming more fascist. This three piece suit Harvard professor proudly puffed up his chest and said, "Of course!"

Understandly, money talks in the US. Hence there is some competition among reporters, but they know who pays their saleries. Three people now own just about every mass media outlet in the country today. That is, unless you count the National Enquirer and whatnot. Gumble wasn't just criticizing his loss of freedom, he was pointedly criticizing the loss of revenue he and his network suffered as a result.

Nobody wants to watch Harvard professors tell them they are lossing their freedom when it is already patently obvious. If the government wants to control the mass media it has to pony up. Either that, or settle for a soviet style Pravda which is no more credible than the National Enquirer, but nonetheless outsells every newspaper in the US combined. In other words, if the US wants at least a somewhat credible pretense of a free press it can't just shut them out of the picture as it attempted to do during the first Gulf war.

Gumble and others made sure the government either supported their particular gravy train or admitted the sad reality of the situation.

"Nobody ever lost money underestimating the average intelligence of the American public."

P. T. Barnum

[FZ+]

Originally posted by russ_watters
So when there are very few reporters, its suppression of the free press, but when there are a lot of reporters its spin? Gee, I guess we really can have it both ways.

I would cite the emergence of "embedded" reporters as an example of how that actually does happen.

There is a difference between reporters giving out propaganda, and free reporters giving out information. We are seeing more of the propaganda, and less of the information. Face it, all governments know what people like to watch. The Iraqis do it well. So does the US.
And in the end, nobody knows anything.

[drag]

That Al-Sahaf is SOOOO funny !!! [:D]
I bet he's just preparing for his libaration
so he could go to the US and give lectures
at 100-grand for each. I mean, he looked
so happy and optimistic denying the tanks
were there when everyone could see'em across
the river...[:D]
(Maybe the regime wasn't all bad if they
had someone as funny as Al-Sahaf in it.[:D])

Live long and prosper.

[wuliheron]

Yeah, its that National Enquirer and World Weekly News mentality. Most people really want a healthy dose of humor with the news it seems. Pravda was the soviet union's version of such rags and it had all the same kind of silly nonsense mixed in with real news so thoroughly its all but impossible to figure out what might be true.

[securitysix]

Unfortunately the posting mechanism of PF3 doesn't show the whole thread so cutting and pasting is a pain. Just wanted to make a comment about the belief that all western democracies have a constitution. Australia doesn't. Thank god. What a disaster that has been in America. Not sure about others. Anyway...

I guess I really am stupid, but you have me confused...How exactly is the US Constitution a disaster? Yeah, there were some things that were less than ideal in it, but I would hardly call it a disaster.

Find out what the people need
Find out what the people want
Figure out how to supply it
Figure out how to administer it

Herein lies the problem. Some people want their government to protect them from everyone and everything including themselves. Some people want absolutely no government interference in anything whatsoever, especially in their own lives. Then there are shades of everything in between. There is too much variation between different sects, even in American society, to make a single form of government that can be accepted by all. The trick is to find the balance that everyone can live with, but not everyone will be willing to live with it. How do you administer that?

Anyone notice a couple of people here can't seem to talk without treating others as though they are stupid? Since when is assuming the position of an arrogant jerk a valid argument?

Woohoo! I'm an arrogant jerk! Actually, I don't know if this is about me or not, but it would be funny if it were, because I'm actually just trying to figure out how some of these theories work. You are right, though, acting like a jerk does nothing to advance your argument, but then, when you're countering someone who is not going to listen to you, it doesn't really hurt your arguments against them. It also doesn't help convince anyone who might be listening, either. If I came off as an arrogant jerk to anyone here during any of my mosts, I apologize, as that was not my intent. If it were my intent, well, I wouldn't apologize. :)

[Raavin]

Getting back to the subject, is anyone actually interested in having a play at coming up with a solution. I'm willing to compromise on some of my values for the greater good. I'm even willing to entertain some 'Capitalistic' elements. Principally though, I'm not willing to give up the basic socialistic premise. That could come through higher taxing of the 'rich' though but I don't think that works. Anyone interested?

Raavin [?]

[wuliheron]

Kurt Vonnegut came up with a good one. He suggested feeding the names of all the qualified candidates for president in to a computer and having it randomly select one. Of course, one of the major qualifications was that none of the candidates wanted the position, but would knuckle down and do the job if chosen.

This isn't too far from my own ideas on the subject. Already large advanced countries are dependent upon extremely complex systems and science. The single largest source of error and inequities that crop up now originate with people, but increasingly everything is being automated. Sometime within the next fifty years computers should attain something near the level of complexity of the human brain and, if not exactly possessed of conscious thought, be indistinguishable from conscious beings. As this occurs I suspect people will increasingly surrender more of their autonomy to the machines and just let them manage everything.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by wuliheron
Kurt Vonnegut came up with a good one. He
suggested feeding the names of all the
qualified candidates for president in to a
computer and having it randomly select one.
Of course, one of the major qualifications was
that none of the candidates wanted the position,
but would knuckle down and do the job if chosen.

That is intresting.
Has there been some serious consideration of this ?
Also, how do you know the person actually doesn't
want to be a president ?
In addition, almost any politician will want to be
one and so will all other "leaders" in the world.
So, if we select folks like scientists and so
on - who don't want it, them being smart won't
help much - it's not like they have to "create"
discisions in the modern world - they have
to decide upon provided options - the job of
leaders.
Originally posted by wuliheron
Sometime within the next fifty years computers
should attain something near the level of
complexity of the human brain and, if not
exactly possessed of conscious thought, be
indistinguishable from conscious beings.
As this occurs I suspect people will increasingly
surrender more of their autonomy to the machines
and just let them manage everything.
Yep. Star Trek hit the nail on the head -
"We are Borg. Resistence is futile."
Thinking of the future as objectivly as
possible I can't help but reach this very likely
pessimistic conclusion - we and the machines
will all become one.

We can see an example of that right here and
now. If we could enhance this forum to neural
pathways comminication - wouldn't we ? And would
we not do that "through" and "together with"
machines ? And once we saw how useful and fun
it is - would we want to "log off" ? And once
we are all "loged in" - wouldn't individulaty
dissapear ?

Live long and prosper.

[wuliheron]

Whether or not you see humans today as individuals or collectives is a question of perspective, context. Human beings are not raised in a vacuum, but instead, share distinctive languages, cultures, etc. The rare child found not raised in this manner has died before reaching puberty. In some sense then, we already are a collective mind.

However, I would point out that the insect like hive mind so many science fiction authors have speculated on has never succeeded in nature beyond the most rudamentary level. This alone suggests it is not competitive for more intelligent animals with longer lifespans than insects. Instead of the borg we'd likely have Data and a whole host of hybrids.

[drag]

Originally posted by wuliheron
However, I would point out that the insect like hive mind so many science fiction authors have speculated on has never succeeded in nature beyond the most rudamentary level. This alone suggests it is not competitive for more intelligent animals with longer lifespans than insects.
Purhaps, however, you could regard such a step
being taken by "intellegent" life as just a
part of evolution.

I for one see no problem for this to happen -
once the people and the computers are all
in the same network, and keep at it because
of all the "advantages", it seems natural
that a certain new order "formation" will
take place. And as "immoral" and strange that
might sound today - can any of us really predict
the future ? [:)]

Live long and prosper.

[wuliheron]

as "immoral" and strange that
might sound today - can any of us really predict
the future ?


Well, if you want to get technical, yes we can predict the future to a significant extent. That's what science is all about.

Of course, we could become borg-like hive creatures, we could blow the planet up, destroy the environment so that only insects and rats will survive, or any number of possibilities. Until such things begin to look really likely I'll settle for more realistic speculations that extrapolate from our current understanding of nature. :~0

[Njorl]

Originally posted by RageSk8
The majority of liberals today live in a fantasy world. Just think back to Clinton, NATO and Yugoslavia. The liberal press praised NATO and Clinton for helping Yugoslavia become more humanitarian. Speeches at NATO condemned all human rights violations. Liberals wrote essays proclaiming change was happening. A few intellectuals became sick to their stomachs - people like Noam Chomsky knew and wrote about what was going on in Yugoslavia. Just weeks before the NATO conference heralded by the liberal press, NATO helped Yugoslavia bomb the Kurds. US supplied F-16s destroyed hundreds of villages. Tens of thousands Kurds were killed and 2-3 million refugees were created. This to a people who were not actively violent. Sure are great times we live in! Dissident voices are censored non-violently – they simply are denied any way to reach the mainstream.

Rage,
You're usually pretty careful about what you post, so I'll assume you got some very strange information.

Yugoslavia never bombed the Kurds. Do you mean Kosovars? Do you mean Bosnians? Even so, Yugoslavia never had any f-16's. They used MiG's.

Njorl

[RageSk8]

Sorry, it was Turkey.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Raavin
Getting back to the subject, is anyone actually interested in having a play at coming up with a solution. I'm willing to compromise on some of my values for the greater good. I'm even willing to entertain some 'Capitalistic' elements. Principally though, I'm not willing to give up the basic socialistic premise.

Raavin [?] Ravin, therein lies the problem. Many people, myself included think we already have the solution. You can find it HERE (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html)

Any way you slice it, that is the most successful government document in the history of the world.

That could come through higher taxing of the 'rich' though but I don't think that works. Anyone interested? Raavin, IMO, that is the crux of the issue with socialists: Eat the rich. If you can't make your own living and don't want to steal it, get the government to steal it for you. That idea is wholly incompatible with a free society.

Woohoo! I'm an arrogant jerk! Actually, I don't know if this is about me or not... No, securitysix, thats probably meant for me. I am higly intolerant of people who cling to failed theories and I don't apologize for it.
Whether or not you see humans today as individuals or collectives is a question of perspective, context. Human beings are not raised in a vacuum, but instead, share distinctive languages, cultures, etc. The rare child found not raised in this manner has died before reaching puberty. In some sense then, we already are a collective mind. Thats certainly true, wuliheron, but it doesn't necessarily mean a system based on collectives will work. Humans aren't that simple - we are social creatures but also fiercely independent.

[wuliheron]

Thats certainly true, wuliheron, but it doesn't necessarily mean a system based on collectives will work. Humans aren't that simple - we are social creatures but also fiercely independent.

Insect collectives are largely organized by chemistry and its been shown they can think to a limited extent collectively. We, on the other hand, are decendent from pack hunters. On the hunt we have to able to think independently yet act as a pack. With the advent of technology we can now organize ourselves by the millions and, increasingly, the speed of communications is the key. Still, we remain pack hunters most capable of interacting effectively in small groups.

Raavin, IMO, that is the crux of the issue with socialists: Eat the rich. If you can't make your own living and don't want to steal it, get the government to steal it for you. That idea is wholly incompatible with a free society.


It is also often the issue of the rich as well, they want to eat the poor. Unlike insects who use chemistry to choose their queen and regulate their roles in life, the alpha male in human packs fights his way to the top. If too agressive the pack itself may tear the alpha apart, if too wimpy they don't make it to the top.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by russ_watters
Ravin, therein lies the problem. Many people, myself included think we already have the solution. You can find it HERE (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html)

[:D] [:))]

wuliheron and russ, I think you guys have somewhat
limmited imaginations (Who could imagine computers
a century ago ?), then again - it could be my wild
one...[;)]

"Reality is more surprising than fiction."
me [:D]

Live long and prosper.

[wuliheron]

Oh no, I've got quite a bit of wild ideas on this subject I just haven't gone into here for the sake of clarity and to not stray from the subject too much. The most intreguing for me is the possibilities of Quantum Neural networks. No one's built one yet, but theoretically at least they should be capable of things our more prosaic brain cells just can't do and fit inside something the size of the period at the end of this sentence.

As Arthur C. Clark said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Frank Herbert once wrote a science fiction book about an AI that became God when it achieved consciousness. I'm not yet willing to start going that far out on a limb in speculating, but it does seem reasonable to assume meritocracies in which people increasingly surrender their autonomy to machines are inevitable.

In a sense, most people already surrender most of their autonomy to machines..... corporate and governmental ones that is. :0)