Which Kind Of Regim Will Be Best For Earth People?

[Genius of Physics]

i think that the comunnism is the best what about you
because we have all the same oportunity
And they have good punishment for the bad guys
the worst one is Nazism don't you think?

 

[balkan]

you must mean fascism...
yeah... communism is a great idea... but unfortunately, it is absolutely impossible to achieve. i'd say social democrasy like in scandinavia perhaps; that's a mix between socialism and free market... no extreme is a viable choise imo...
now notice, that I'm a socialist by heart, but I'm also a realist, and thus prefer social democrasy over socialism, because it is more "relaxed" and offer more freedoms and individuality, which i believe is important due to the selfish nature of human beings..

 

[cragwolf]

I don't understand. I have lost count of how many times I have heard the statement, or words to the effect of, "Communism is a good idea in theory, but not in practice..." What theory is that? Certainly, no theory about "Earth People". :tongue:

But seriously, the best form of government is Bill Clinton. Damn these two-term limits.

No, but seriously, the best form of government would be the elimination of that 10% or 20% of people who get their kicks bossing, bullying, hurting and exploiting other people. If only we could find a 100% reliable way to detect it in newborns, it would be worth the rise in mortality rates.

Wait, wait, ending this post on a completely serious note, the best form of government is nudism.

 

[balkan]

I don't understand. I have lost count of how many times I have heard the statement, or words to the effect of, "Communism is a good idea in theory, but not in practice..." What theory is that? Certainly, no theory about "Earth People". :tongue:

10% or 20% of people who get their kicks bossing, bullying, hurting and exploiting other people.

you just answered your own question

 

[balkan]

btw... with the typical "communism is best" logic, capitalism is actually the best:
total freedom of choise.
everybody helps one another out of free will.
social problems are dealt with through voluntary funds...

it's a wonderfull world... except that humans as a species are selfish and ignorant.

maybe the best idea would be to create areas of different regimes across the world... then people could migrate to whatever regime they wanted... be it a religious based regime or idealism based :D

 

[Zantra]

I think the one from star trek where there is no money, hunger, disease or poverty is the best.. but hey, if communism can work...

 

[olde drunk]

nudism sounds good, but, i would like free love communes.

think-a-bout-it! small little groups all pulling together for a common good and gratuitous sex. no need for a central gov't, no need for money, etc etc

ah, if ooonnly....

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[Zantra]

nudism sounds good, but, i would like free love communes.

think-a-bout-it! small little groups all pulling together for a common good and gratuitous sex. no need for a central gov't, no need for money, etc etc

ah, if ooonnly....

love&peace,
olde drunk

where do I sign up for that?

 

[LENIN]

Communism has some great ideas, but it also has a few problems.

First of all is that people are supose to guvern themselfs. This clearly doesn't work. Most people from my personal experienc (we just had electios here) can not even choose a good government let alone run one. So I believe that a perfect sistem would be technocratical communisem, where the most importent officals would heve to change every few years.

Communisem also has the problem of being a revolutionery politic. In a lot of cases a revolution is really necesary. But sometimes evolution is beather and you can't really run a government in a revolutionery way (aldo youshould chang officals regularly).

But the bigest problem is that communisem has to be started and ran by communistical people. And real communistiacl people are either totaly unselfisch (don't believe such exist ) or educated in the ways of communism by other communistical people. So there is really almost no way to start a good communistical goverment. Except mybe if you could somehow convince people that communism is really the best solution for the majority of the population.

CSP (communism shall prevail)

 

[wuliheron]

where do I sign up for that?

http://www.ic.org/

Star Trek assumes a future meritocracy or "rule by the good deed doers." This is, of course, the supposid goal of communists and captalists alike.

 

[tumor]

nudism sounds good, but, i would like free love communes.

think-a-bout-it! small little groups all pulling together for a common good and gratuitous sex. no need for a central gov't, no need for money, etc etc

ah, if ooonnly....

love&peace,
olde drunk

Yeah Man! :tongue2: :tongue2: :tongue2: :tongue2: :tongue2: :tongue2: :tongue2: :tongue2: :tongue2: :tongue2: :tongue2: :tongue2: :tongue2:

 

[Aquamarine]

btw... with the typical "communism is best" logic, capitalism is actually the best:
total freedom of choise.
everybody helps one another out of free will.
social problems are dealt with through voluntary funds...

it's a wonderfull world... except that humans as a species are selfish and ignorant.

maybe the best idea would be to create areas of different regimes across the world... then people could migrate to whatever regime they wanted... be it a religious based regime or idealism based :D

You can alreday do that. Communists can go to North Korea. Islamic fundamentalists to Sudan or Iran. Anarchists can go to Somalia. Strangely enought almost all people want to go to more capitalistic countries.

If someone wants a real discussion with facts, not opinions, go here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47317

 

[Aquamarine]

nudism sounds good, but, i would like free love communes.

think-a-bout-it! small little groups all pulling together for a common good and gratuitous sex. no need for a central gov't, no need for money, etc etc

ah, if ooonnly....

love&peace,
olde drunk

There is nothing stopping you from doing most of that in a free country. You can create a community more a less separated from the rest of the world, like the Amish. Some money for taxes and import from the rest of the world can be gained from exports.

Want no taxes and regulations? Go to Somalia.

 

[tumor]

There is nothing stopping you from doing most of that in a free country. You can create a community more a less separated from the rest of the world, like the Amish. Some money for taxes and import from the rest of the world can be gained from exports.

Want no taxes and regulations? Go to Somalia.

Ha! It is not that easy, small groups of people can form some independent community but on a large scale if some countries want to be independent for example Vietnam ,Nicaragua,Cuba , greedy hand of neocolonialists and capitalists either invades,bomb or put trade embargo on them.

 

[Zantra]

http://www.ic.org/

Star Trek assumes a future meritocracy or "rule by the good deed doers." This is, of course, the supposid goal of communists and captalists alike.

Actually I was referring to old drunke's idea- I like his much better

Then what do you call a government ruled by a bunch of greedy liars catering to corporate interests? I call it my USA, but what's the technical "ocracy"?

 

[Aquamarine]

Ha! It is not that easy, small groups of people can form some independent community but on a large scale if some countries want to be independent for example Vietnam ,Nicaragua,Cuba , greedy hand of neocolonialists and capitalists either invades,bomb or put trade embargo on them.

If you have any science to support your claim and not supposed anecdotes, give it. As shown in my link previously, there is overwhelming evidence that capitalism is better for the poor.
Vietnam, Nicaragua and Cuba have had the usual share of the genocides that seems obligatory in communist societies.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

Vietnam is on the way to becoming the usual economic miracle after embracing capitalism. Ask the people themselves, have lived through both communism and capitalsm: "Most people are better off in a free market economy, even though some people are rich and some are poor". 0% completely disagreed, 61% completely agreed. The highest numbers in the world in support for capitalism from people who have tried both systems.
http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/185topline.pdf
(Question 17a)

 

[cragwolf]

Anarchists can go to Somalia.

You clearly don't know what anarchism is. Instead of Somalia I would suggest an appropriate Israeli kibbutz.

 

[tumor]

I really don't care about what kind of ideology we are under.What I wanted to show you that on a small scale few people can form independent community but always one way or another conforming to the authority,if they don't they are in trouble, remember Waco.
Capitalism (American way) can't work in the long run, that is why you see for example country like Grenada invaded by USA.
Grenada tried to escape sphere of American influence and to decide on their own politicall and economic matters.
Don't get fooled by all this demonization and fear mongering but Saddam Hussein tried to the same thing.

 

[Aquamarine]

You clearly don't know what anarchism is. Instead of Somalia I would suggest an appropriate Israeli kibbutz.

I am well aware of the theory of both left and right anarchists. Kibbutz are a good example of the kind of organization that can be formed in a free society. As I said before, similar organizations that strives to achieve the ideals of olde drunk can also be formed in a free society. They can and have. And they are easily outcompeted by other kind of organizations that produce better produces and higher salaries. Otherwise these communities would be everywhere, having proven their superiority.

But what anarchists want is to force their ideas on all people living in a certain area. Somehow they believe that the failure of their communities will then disappear. And for some reason not to degenerate into the violence and right of the strongest that exits in all real anarchies.

 

[cragwolf]

But what anarchists want is to force their ideas on all people living in a certain area. Somehow they believe that the failure of their communities will then disappear. And for some reason not to degenerate into the violence and right of the strongest that exits in all real anarchies.

Again, you can point to something and call it a "real" anarchy, but that doesn't make it such. To learn about anarchism, you can start with the
Anarchism FAQ. Now to me it sounds like an elaborate pipedream, but I'm not arrogant enough to tell them what anarchism "really" is. I know what it's not, though, and it's definitely not Somalia. That country never even attempted to implement any principles of anarchism. For one thing, the concept of hierarchy is still very strong in Somalia. At least when you're criticising communism, you can say that the Soviet Union tried to implement communism ... and obviously failed.

 

[Aquamarine]

You give no answer to why anarchistic communities or cooperatives have not already competed out corporations in a free market, if they are superior. There have been many attempts by idealists, but corporations have been the choice of the people. Why have the anarchists failed?

And there have never been a complete functioning anarchy in a society with a division of labor. But there have been many times when there was no state in an area, like in Somalia, and the anarchist utopia have never appeared. Again, why if it such a good idea?

And I have read the FAQ. Their claims are in contradiction with empiric economic research. That more capitalism, measured with the indexes of economic freedom, gives less poverty, have some of the best empirical evidence in economics. They carefully avoid to mention those studies, choosing instead to tell anecdotes to the public rather than to do that tiresome research that can be criticized by those irritating peers.

So anarchism have failed the test of reality. And it have also failed the test of theory. Left-anarchism have all the usual problems with socialism and more.

1. One problem with socialism it that there must be a small group of people making the decisions for all. It is not possible to vote on all small details and the capitalistic price system leads to inequality and should be abolished. This is true also in an anarchy, workers in a factory cannot endlessly cease work, discuss and vote about all the small decisions taken often quickly by experienced executives. But this small group of leaders have much less computational ability than when all people participate in the capitalistic price system. Socialism/anarchism is inherently more stupid than capitalism.

2. One other problem is that people will not work as well when paid regardless of results or efforts. Trying to reward only effort, even if possible to measure, will mean that much work is wasted without result.
A related problem is how to avoid corruption, especially among the leaders.

3. A problem unique to anarchism is is often easier to use violence than to work for what one want. So a society needs a justice system, a police and a military. But then we have a state.

Anarchistic/socialistic theory have attempted to avoid these problems in various ways.
Some advocate that people, especially the leaders, should be change occupation very often in order to reduce inequality and corruption. But this will dramatically reduces skills and experience. In today's society if often takes many years to gain required skills and they must constantly be trained.

One other is that people suddenly will change their nature when entering the anarchistic utopia and endlessly will work for common good without ever wanting more than their fair share. Violence and corruption will disappear spontaneously.

Another variation is that in an anarchy, resources will suddenly be endless. There will be so much available to everyone that there will never be a conflict of interest.

 

[Genius of Physics]

yes the social democracy is good also for rich people but in denmark they are not longer that they are now liberals
hey it is not good for everyone if the regime is built by conservatism because you can see the example ont the usa they have many hungry people about 8 million its almost every 30third men has no money to take care of him or family. Liberalism is good for the rich people because they get many things here is an example: You are as smart as Einstein but your family has not any money to pay your collage so you must quit the school and find a job that's not a good life.
By the way i nwever heard of the nudism and that will not bee good either try to think that a naked man is runing and he has hit you...

 

[selfAdjoint]

hey it is not good for everyone if the regime is built by conservatism because you can see the example ont the usa they have many hungry people about 8 million its almost every 30third men has no money to take care of him or family.

.

Reference please? Does not agree with observation.

 

[balkan]

You can alreday do that. Communists can go to North Korea. Islamic fundamentalists to Sudan or Iran. Anarchists can go to Somalia. Strangely enought almost all people want to go to more capitalistic countries.

If someone wants a real discussion with facts, not opinions, go here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47317

if you call North Korea communistic, then you're definitely just trying to make a point, cause that has got nothing to do with communism, really.
just as many people are moving to european countrys, which are just as socialistic oriented as capitalistic. and they don't even "advetise" like america does... nor do they have extremely poor neighbors like america does...
people that have actually got a clue about things, move to moderate countrys.

 

[Aquamarine]

if you call North Korea communistic, then you're definitely just trying to make a point, cause that has got nothing to do with communism, really.
just as many people are moving to european countrys, which are just as socialistic oriented as capitalistic. and they don't even "advetise" like america does... nor do they have extremely poor neighbors like america does...
people that have actually got a clue about things, move to moderate countrys.

European countries are very capitalistic compared to the rest of the world:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.html
http://www.freetheworld.com/2004/efw2004ch1.pdf

And they have very poor neighbors in the Islamic world and Africa.

 

[balkan]

European countries are very capitalistic compared to the rest of the world:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.html
http://www.freetheworld.com/2004/efw2004ch1.pdf

And they have very poor neighbors in the Islamic world and Africa.

hehehehe... so now economically free = capitalistic?
no it means free market. like i said, socialism+free market (a capitalistic trait) = europe...
did you notice Denmark and sweden up there in the top? those are probably two of the most socialistic oriented countrys in the entire world. and I'm talking socialism, not totalitarism like north korea...

and if you call africa a "neighbour" in comparison with mexico and central america, then you need some glasses. btw. i believe germany takes in as many immigrants and refugees as usa do..

check this:
"The Danish system includes free public education, health care coverage from cradle to grave, and subsidized care for children and the elderly. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, “One feature that Denmark shares with most of the other Nordic economies is its high level of state expenditure to total economic activity, which is now among the highest in the world.” "
that's capitalistic right there :D

 

[Aquamarine]

hehehehe... so now economically free = capitalistic?
no it means free market. like i said, socialism+free market (a capitalistic trait) = europe...
did you notice Denmark and sweden up there in the top? those are probably two of the most socialistic oriented countrys in the entire world. and I'm talking socialism, not totalitarism like north korea...

and if you call africa a "neighbour" in comparison with mexico and central america, then you need some glasses. btw. i believe germany takes in as many immigrants and refugees as usa do..

check this:
"The Danish system includes free public education, health care coverage from cradle to grave, and subsidized care for children and the elderly. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, “One feature that Denmark shares with most of the other Nordic economies is its high level of state expenditure to total economic activity, which is now among the highest in the world.” "
that's capitalistic right there :D

Lots of economic research have been done using indexes of economic freedom, which are a measure of how capitalistic a society is. You can read some of the results here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47317

You have a wrong idea of what socialistic means. Socialistic systems "All advocate placing at least some of the means of production -- and at least some of the distribution of goods and services -- into collective or cooperative ownership."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Thus, the most socialistic economies are they where all of the means of productions äre owned collectively, like in communism or left-anarchism.

Regarding Sweden, most economists think the second index is better, and there Sweden places much lower. But Sweden is interesting as being one of the countries having reduced their capitalism the fastest. Here are some of the results. The graph is in Swedish, the first shows growth in GDP and the second private consumption, per capita. In short, Sweden has rapidly become poorer compared to other nations. There are similar trends for the other Scandinavian countries:
http://www.internetional.se/eftersla.jpg

Regarding emigration, people want to move from less capitalistic societies, like in Africa or the Middle East, to more capitalistic, like in the EU.

 

[balkan]

that's actually quite interesting read on that page... except for the really obvious comments from the us department of whatever, that everyone should lower their taxes which would make them better countrys...
there's more to socialism than state ownership though... state ownership doesn't neccessarily benefit the common man... free education, health care, **** like that, that's beneficial for the common man...
and both sweden, denmark and norway employ a great, great deal of their work force in the public sector... and they get paid too :D

 

[Twistedseer]

?

Forget all this crap.

And just be Human.

Without control, limits, or rules.

let your race become what it is.

Find the balance

Twistedseer

 

[Genius of Physics]

ok people i know that you have another culture but you know how you maked america so strong and africa so weak i don't know if you cannot see it by your self. You are experimenting on them all the time your new weapons you are buying their organs styealing resources. Now don't judge me for saying bad about the capitalistic countries cos i am with all humans or i am against all I am not a Nazi I am speaking the truth which is hidden, you would say No we are not stealing but you do in a way you can not see but the politican can.
You have by yourself maked Korea(N) eNemy because you do not help them but you triing to defeat them.
YOu can not maybe see it because some of you are american i have nothing against you but you åpoliticans are playin police and sometime will they regretad.

so think about it if you undrestand what I am i wtiting and remember to Vote on the ELEctions

 

[selfAdjoint]

In 1950 the North Korean regime attacked South Korea. The United Nations (not just the US) opposed it and started the Korean Police Action, as they called it. There was a large coalition of troops from most non-communist countries. The US has not attacked North Korea since the Police Action was brought to a close in 1953. Various countries, including the US and China have been trying to find a way to persuade the North Koreans to halt the developments of nuclear weapons.

None of these facts are recognisable in your ill-informed screed.

 

[Genius of Physics]

Usa had do it the same way as N. korea by atacking Vietnam(N)
the people of the north have self chosen which regime they want but i think that they should united

 

[russ_watters]

Usa had do it the same way as N. korea by atacking Vietnam(N)
the people of the north have self chosen which regime they want but i think that they should united

That's as distorted as the view of Korea was! We entered Vietnam as France was exiting, and the North was attacking the south (with, again, the backing of China). The goal was to defend the South from the North.

SA, one caveat to the Korea history, which I consider relevant (an I'm sure you know) is that there never was a real diplomatic resolution to the Korean War, ie a peace treaty.

 

[kouga]

maybe the best idea would be to create areas of different regimes across the world... then people could migrate to whatever regime they wanted... be it a religious based regime or idealism based :D

this would be the best answer but it is in humans nature to seek riches and expand land so each regime would then try to expand causing another or a series of world wars.