Discussion: Government Types

[Nathan Branigan]

Apr 25, 2008 7:53:28 GMT 1 Felix said:

Wrong or right, it's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Though, Shamino, most people would try and turn around and say that, I won't. I'm completely serious about it.

I think that the majority of people need a wake up call so disastrous that it sets them straight, though with the amount of desensitization in USA I don't even think Anarchism would be enough.

Now as far as third and second world countries go, this would be nothing new to them. Most of them live in cultures where they utilize everything given to them. So an Anarchist state would have no real sense of being, if that makes any sense to it. I was remarking about the American people. Should of put that up there first, huh?

But that's not what this thread is about, it's about what your ideal society would be. That would be my ideal society, watching the people turn in and against one another purely for survival. I would love to watch this happen, seeing as how in a few hundred years, it may end up becoming so. History repeats itself, only a matter of time before the people revolt.

Felix, Anarchism doesn't really count as a government type. Maybe sort of, but not really. And this is an ideal government type, not a shock factor that you think would set people straight. Getting people to turn on one another for survival as an IDEAL form of doing things really is messed up. Regardless of what society is at the time. And even if we do need a shock, it shouldn't be a permanent thing. Anarchism as an ideal form of government is absolutely incorrect. As a founding father said "If men were angels, no government would be necessary".

[Kei]

I Loled. Very loudly (at Shamino).

--

It'd be very hard for a people to accomplish anarchy. Even then, other countries won't let it happen. Just think of it as the French Revolution. No acting government would want its people to be "influenced" by another nation's problem.

And say that somewhere out there anarchy is successful, what then? There would be continued war and disorder. Some people would want a better form of government, while others truly want to bask in complete anarchy. An embodiment of law is the only thing that can protect the people, and though there are weaknesses the lowest standard for a "lesson-learned" government would be to satisfy at least a good majority of the people. And then from there, there is only more conflict. It's like Marx' Communism. Perfect Communism demands that when all is said and done, government withers away. It sounds so perfect, but it'll never happen. The problem with anarchy, is that... well, it all comes down to that famous quote of humans not being angels. People want to be safe, and would therefore rely on rules.

I don't think Americans take their freedoms for granted. It's enough to know that our freedoms permit nearly half our country to bad mouth the presidency. Maybe its because of the area I live in, or because of what goes on on T.V, but there's no way we take our shit for granted. We're reminded everyday of our personal freedoms. But I guess for my personal satisfaction, the only thing I can say is; if you don't like it here, then you don't have to be here.

My thoughts were so unorganized that I forgot a lot of what I initially wanted to write, but this'll do I suppose.

--

(My ideal form of government is Monarchy/dictatorship. Influenced mostly by how I would personally handle the position. If not that, then, well... good ol' [Representative] Democracy.)

~Manuel

[Felix]

Shamino: I laughed at that, it was funny.

And Kei: Nice sig .

And anarchy wouldn't be a lasting state of affairs, just a short term civil unrest in which new forms of govt. would pop up and try and control things. Be it loosely formulated and the such.

[Nathan Branigan]

You stated that is was you ideal form, implying that it was a government type to last. Also, Anarchy is no government(chaos). Otherwise you mean loose city-states or confederations with little big government control at all. Much like the Articles of Confederation or the Greek city states. New forms rarely happen though, They just revert to fresh versions of the same old types. New types rarely happen.

[Felix]

And it would, just to a lesser extent after the initial confusion of it all. With no real power behind anything that might try to control everything, anarchy would be able to last. I'm saying that things would begin to stabilize, while not really doing so.

I should have compiled all my thoughts in the first post, I hate having to go back and do a run around.