Remember, remember the 5th of November.

[Necromancer]

But you still need to have some kind of body to regulate society. Otherwise people just do what the f*** they want. I don't care what Jaques Frescoe says, some kind of government is needed.

As long as it doesn't involve infringing upon the rights and liberties of others, people should be able to do what they want. Although I had been interested in the idea of anarchism before, I did wonder what would keep people from doing things like stealing from each other. Then, I was introduced to the Venus Project. Jacque Fresco's ingenious concept of anti monetarism could work beautifully in an anarchist society. And, if someone were to do something like kill another person (this part doesn't really have to do with anti monetarism or a resource based economy, just anarchism), it's not as if there wouldn't be any consequences. The community would collaborate and decide what is to be done with the person. It would be extreme democracy. It's also entirely possible that the equality and the absence of money in a society like this would significantly decrease the number of crimes like rape and murder committed anyway.

For the record, I'm not quite an anarchist or an official advocate of a resource based economy, but it is possible that, especially when combined, these two ideas could create a society superior to anything humanity has tried before, though I am still immersed in the process of looking into them.

 

[Arseface]

As long as it doesn't involve infringing upon the rights and liberties of others, people should be able to do what they want. Although I had been interested in the idea of anarchism before, I did wonder what would keep people from doing things like stealing from each other. Then, I was introduced to the Venus Project. Jacque Fresco's ingenious concept of anti monetarism could work beautifully in an anarchist society. And, if someone were to do something like kill another person (this part doesn't really have to do with anti monetarism or a resource based economy, just anarchism), it's not as if there wouldn't be any consequences. The community would collaborate and decide what is to be done with the person. It would be extreme democracy. It's also entirely possible that the equality and the absence of money in a society like this would significantly decrease the number of crimes like rape and murder committed anyway.

For the record, I'm not quite an anarchist or an official advocate of a resource based economy, but it is possible that, especially when combined, these two ideas could create a society superior to anything humanity has tried before, though I am still immersed in the process of looking into them.

What about if there's a massive split on a huge issue like, say, how to deal with first contact? What if one side just loses, and they decide that their opinion is still right, and decide to riot? How does a society with no organised police/military force deal with a civil war?

I mean I agree that a moneyless society is a good idea, but we don't need to scrap every aspect of our current one.

 

[Zarkes]

Most political, economic theorms are based on a stagnant reality, that nothing will change or evolve and no unforseen threats will appear.

In reality, it is my belief that the most adaptable most changeable system will win not the strongest most organized system. Breeding in perfection is imenent doom.

We'd need a seed so adaptive, so persuasive that it got to the point of not only thriving in any environment but finding one that didn't suit itself, and changing it.

 

[Necromancer]

What about if there's a massive split on a huge issue like, say, how to deal with first contact? What if one side just loses, and they decide that their opinion is still right, and decide to riot? How does a society with no organised police/military force deal with a civil war?

I mean I agree that a moneyless society is a good idea, but we don't need to scrap every aspect of our current one.

Well, that would be less likely to happen in an anarchy because society would probably be operating on a much smaller scale. Most anarchists theorize that anarchism would work much better if people were separated into many smaller communities and compounds, like Fresco's circular cities, rather than into fewer larger countries like we have today. Plus, an ideal anarchy would be partially centered around cooperation and compromising. So, the population would usually try to come up with an agreement that satisfies most or all viewpoints of a certain issue, and even if a certain group was completely dissatisfied with the majority's decision, they would have been raised to recognize that doing something like rioting would most likely be more harmful to humanity in the long run than cooperating with the people they thought were taking the wrong approach to said issue.

it is my belief that the most adaptable most changeable system will win not the strongest most organized system.

That is understandable. After all, the most unadaptable and most unchangeable systems are ones with elite classes or ruling classes because nobody at the top of society ever wants to lose their power.

 

[Arseface]

Well, that would be less likely to happen in an anarchy because society would probably be operating on a much smaller scale. Most anarchists theorize that anarchism would work much better if people were separated into many smaller communities and compounds, like Fresco's circular cities, rather than into fewer larger countries like we have today. Plus, an ideal anarchy would be partially centered around cooperation and compromising. So, the population would usually try to come up with an agreement that satisfies most or all viewpoints of a certain issue, and even if a certain group was completely dissatisfied with the majority's decision, they would have been raised to recognize that doing something like rioting would most likely be more harmful to humanity in the long run than cooperating with the people they thought were taking the wrong approach to said issue.

But what about something like first contact where we need to present a united front? Say we have the opportunity to make contant with a species with a similar technology level to us. One group thinks we shouldn't make contact, one group thinks we should. Obviously the two actions are mutually exclusive, and there's really no middle ground. Say the group who are against contact think it will lead to war, whilst the others think it will be a peaceful thing. Say 51% are for it, and 49% against it. What do you do in that situation? Obviously people would have been brought up to recognise that that kind of action is bad, but what if they firmly believe that rioting is the lesser evil?

Obviously that kind of thing can still happen in a todays society, but the difference is that today's society is equipped to deal with it better than this pacifistic utopia.

 

[Aions]

Hacker group Anonymous claims on november 5th 2011 that they will kill Facebook. They say it infringes upon people's privacy and really this is the one thing that would make them Elites in the public's eyes, if they can pull it off..

Here is the article: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/anonymous-well-kill-facebook-bonfire-night-091100029.html

View attachment 349

 

[Necromancer]

But what about something like first contact where we need to present a united front? Say we have the opportunity to make contant with a species with a similar technology level to us. One group thinks we shouldn't make contact, one group thinks we should. Obviously the two actions are mutually exclusive, and there's really no middle ground. Say the group who are against contact think it will lead to war, whilst the others think it will be a peaceful thing. Say 51% are for it, and 49% against it. What do you do in that situation? Obviously people would have been brought up to recognise that that kind of action is bad, but what if they firmly believe that rioting is the lesser evil?

Obviously that kind of thing can still happen in a todays society, but the difference is that today's society is equipped to deal with it better than this pacifistic utopia.

Well, let me start by saying that even an ideal anarchy is not utopian. No system is. As for the specific set of circumstances you've presented, I don't really have a straight answer for you. Perhaps a compromise would be to create weapons just in case war were declared, or maybe just try to learn more about the extraterrestrial beings, and then contact them if it is deemed safe. As I said before, I'm not quite an anarchist, and I'm not an expert on the theory. Perhaps someone like Noam Chomsky would have sufficient knowledge to satisfy your inquiry, but I don't. However, a situation like this seems fairly unlikely, so I don't see it as much of a setback for the anarchist theory. I can state with a good amount of confidence that an ideal anarchist world would be significantly better than the one we have now, and I definitely think that at the very least, anarchism should be tested.

 

[Arseface]

Well, let me start by saying that even an ideal anarchy is not utopian. No system is. As for the specific set of circumstances you've presented, I don't really have a straight answer for you. Perhaps a compromise would be to create weapons just in case war were declared, or maybe just try to learn more about the extraterrestrial beings, and then contact them if it is deemed safe. As I said before, I'm not quite an anarchist, and I'm not an expert on the theory. Perhaps someone like Noam Chomsky would have sufficient knowledge to satisfy your inquiry, but I don't. However, a situation like this seems fairly unlikely, so I don't see it as much of a setback for the anarchist theory. I can state with a good amount of confidence that an ideal anarchist world would be significantly better than the one we have now, and I definitely think that at the very least, anarchism should be tested.

I'm not saying that it's not a good idea, I'm just thinking that it wouldn't take a lot to topple that kind of society.

I don't care what kind of society it is, it needs a police force to be stable.

 

[Necromancer]

I don't care what kind of society it is, it needs a police force to be stable.

Well, perhaps, but that's a matter of opinion for now since anarchism has never been put into practice.

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

i couldn't care how my country is run (careless statement, i know). the way i see it, every system that has failed has done so by the influence of mans folly. i do not think that every person is rotten to the core, but i know many who are would pursue a career in politics. the best form of government, i would think, would be the one which manages to make one persons influence as little as possible. this is mainly what leads me to think of democracy as an ideal way to make one greedy bastard just as important as the real human beings. taking this a step further into the ideal world, it becomes a society run entirely by computers where no person, moron or not, can say what's best. it's around then that i take a step back, consider i may be crazy as they say, and try not to think about politics after i've been speedballing off of dirty vegas hookers.

lets face it, all the rednecks in the US would **** bricks thinking the terminators would come for them if the judicial system was a computer program. it's ridiculous what hollywood's done to this country. i showed my boss that video gakoyu ojima posted a while back with computers that use rat brain cells and have the capability to learn and his reaction was that we should stop before they take over the world. seriously.

 

[Arseface]

i couldn't care how my country is run (careless statement, i know). the way i see it, every system that has failed has done so by the influence of mans folly. i do not think that every person is rotten to the core, but i know many who are would pursue a career in politics. the best form of government, i would think, would be the one which manages to make one persons influence as little as possible. this is mainly what leads me to think of democracy as an ideal way to make one greedy bastard just as important as the real human beings. taking this a step further into the ideal world, it becomes a society run entirely by computers where no person, moron or not, can say what's best. it's around then that i take a step back, consider i may be crazy as they say, and try not to think about politics after i've been speedballing off of dirty vegas hookers.

lets face it, all the rednecks in the US would s*** bricks thinking the terminators would come for them if the judicial system was a computer program. it's ridiculous what hollywood's done to this country. i showed my boss that video gakoyu ojima posted a while back with computers that use rat brain cells and have the capability to learn and his reaction was that we should stop before they take over the world. seriously.

To be fair, we're probably a hundred years away from a computer than has that kind of processing power, and that's if Moores Law holds up that long. I also don't think a autocracy run by a machine is necessarily best

The best form of government is a true democracy. Everyone votes on every issue, which can easily be achieved with computers today (or in the near future at the very least). But that will make politicians irrelevant, so thats not going to happen.

 

[Arseface]

There are problems with true/pure/direct democracies.

Who comes up with the legislation to be voted on? Everyone? How many bills will come from Tennessee to make it legal to marry your horse? (Sorry to anyone who lives in Tennessee.) Will everyone have to vote on every bill that everyone wants? How many bullcrap bills will be passed because not enough people are looking at what they're voting on but lack the decency to not vote on it? How many people will weigh the consequences before voting? Who will bother to check our debts before voting yes on bills for projects that, despite being good, are just too expensive? Not every single person can be expected to be informed on every single issue that they'd be voting on. Granted, our politicians don't know what they're voting on most of the time either, but changing out the politicians can fix that whereas nothing can get everyone to know about the issues and care about them. A bigger problem is that there would be nothing to stop the majority from forcing their will onto the minority. Let's say we're attacked by Arab terrorists, and suddenly the majority of people want to revoke rights from all Arab citizens or kick them all out or worse, there is nothing to stop it.

With a representative democracy, a democratic republic (like what we have), we can elect officials who can dedicate their time to be informed on the issues, weigh the consequences, determine what they feel is best. And they decide what legislation is needed. And if we don't like their decisions, we can kick them out. And with the division of government powers, there are plenty of measures to stop a majority from unjustly forcing things onto a minority.

As cheez said, the cause of a system's imperfections is human involvement. I'm sure all governments were designed to be perfect and their flaws only became noticed in practice. Fact is everything will have flaws, but it is important to consider whether or not the flaws we have now are better than the flaws we would have under another system. I think our current setup is good, just needs different people.

John, saying that the system I suggested is not as good because the people will misuse it, and then saying that the one you support is good, except for the people misusing it doesn't really make sense to me.

Of course a true democracy can't be achieved without a decent education system, a substantial change in the way society works, and probably getting rid of the monetary system.

There are a lot of intermediate steps, but it's the best solution in my eyes.

 

[Arseface]

There will always be uneducated people. We can raise the standard, but there will still be people below it. If people are the error, then the more people involved means the greater the error will be. Fewer people, fewer problems. But it's not just that simple, the other part of the puzzle is how people interact with the system they're using. If the system does nothing to minimize error (direct democracies don't have vetoes or Supreme Courts) then that is a problem.

I don't think giving one body the power to veto any law that gets considered is a great idea. If we can educate people about how to use their votes properly, critical thinking, etc, plus making voting voluntary, then it can be achieved pretty easily.

You gotta have more faith in humanity John. Most people are smarter than you give them credit for.

 

[Zarkes]

For the problem of Democracy I look to the ancient city of Athens. It's a great citystate still remembered to this day. They practiced true democracy or at least the truest form I can think of. Almost anytime a decision was made everyone had to go to a coloseum like structure to sit and vote. This was as fair as it gets for everyone because everyone was considered a citizen every man woman and child, and slave. Problem 1 is that this stopped intelligent people from passing the right legislation because everyone had a say even your village idiot. Also, that meant the entire city had to funnel in to congress meaning for a period of time the entire city was shutdown, probably vunerable to attack aswell.

And then theres Sparta almost the opposite a warring state everyone even mothers worked for the state superceding all other matters including family.

Imperialist states are the most succesfull history wise (history means his story i.e the winner) their downfall comes when they reach the golden era they work for so hard which is complete control, with no more enemies to fight the fabric of their society breaks down.

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

For the problem of Democracy I look to the ancient city of Athens. It's a great citystate still remembered to this day. They practiced true democracy or at least the truest form I can think of. Almost anytime a decision was made everyone had to go to a coloseum like structure to sit and vote. This was as fair as it gets for everyone because everyone was considered a citizen every man woman and child, and slave. Problem 1 is that this stopped intelligent people from passing the right legislation because everyone had a say even your village idiot. Also, that meant the entire city had to funnel in to congress meaning for a period of time the entire city was shutdown, probably vunerable to attack aswell.

though a great example of democracy, this is one city we're talking about. a larger population breeds apathy and ignorance. JD is right, the best solution to that is to have people represent the entire population.... and do it well.

we've talked about this before arse, i think you have too much faith in humanity and you think i have too little. maybe the populace in australia differs from here, but here you have the poor in need of help and the rich doing everything they can to pay fewer taxes. thing is, the rich have lots of political influence and can afford to pay people to help them exploit every loophole in our tax laws. many of the former group who i see at work are great, well intentioned people. thing is they are not educated and probably will remain that way until the end of their days.

 

[Necromancer]

Someone doesn't know their history. Check out civil wars across the globe (most notably, English, French, Spanish, Russian, Somalian), during and after each, there is anarchy.

Well of course there is going to be anarchy in the midst of a civil war or revolution while the state is dismantled or in disarray, but that turns into the ruthless and chaotic kind of anarchy, which, as I said before, is not the kind of anarchy that anarchism strives for. I see two main reasons for this. These civil wars were not sparked by true anarchism. There were not enough people (if any) preaching correct and civilized anarchist practices for them to be implemented into society. The second reason is that the change from government to anarchy happened much too rapidly. People were accustomed to following rules under their government, and when that government was gone, they were more compelled than ever to break those rules due to the lack of consequences. If true anarchism were to work, there would have to be an extremely long and gradual process to assimilate people into that kind of society. Even if that process were to start today, I wouldn't be surprised if none of us here lived long enough to see the end result.

In anarchy, a state is unorganized, decentralized, and really can't defend itself, and there is a power vacuum, making it a prime target for someone to come in and assume control of it. That's the pattern, always happens. If you have anarchy, an influential power-hungry tyrant with an army of impressionable fools and mercenaries will run in and take power, creating government where there is none. Rhode Island was founded on anarchist principles, and soon after turned into a governed state. Unwittingly, or so I choose to believe.

I don't really have a problem with decentralization. In fact, it would be good for an anarchy. As for the rest of this, well, that's why anarchism would work much better on a global scale.

If you take our world as it is and destroy all governments, all borders, all society, all status, all wealth, and everyone was to be the same, someone will rise up and declare himself king. As it has been since the dawn of man.

And in an ideal anarchy, he would be laughed off of his fake and self-proclaimed throne.

Or, as most people paraphrase it, "government is a necessary evil at best, intolerable one at worst." The reason it is necessary is because it cannot be avoided, the absence of government lures and creates government. Always.

I still consider this a matter of opinion since real anarchism has not been put into practice before.

There are problems with true/pure/direct democracies.

Who comes up with the legislation to be voted on? Everyone? How many bills will come from Tennessee to make it legal to marry your horse? (Sorry to anyone who lives in Tennessee.) Will everyone have to vote on every bill that everyone wants? How many bullcrap bills will be passed because not enough people are looking at what they're voting on but lack the decency to not vote on it? How many people will weigh the consequences before voting? Who will bother to check our debts before voting yes on bills for projects that, despite being good, are just too expensive? Not every single person can be expected to be informed on every single issue that they'd be voting on. Granted, our politicians don't know what they're voting on most of the time either, but changing out the politicians can fix that whereas nothing can get everyone to know about the issues and care about them. A bigger problem is that there would be nothing to stop the majority from forcing their will onto the minority. Let's say we're attacked by Arab terrorists, and suddenly the majority of people want to revoke rights from all Arab citizens or kick them all out or worse, there is nothing to stop it.

I'll operate under the assumption that you're basically talking about anarchism here.

How many bills will come from Tennessee to make it legal to marry your horse?

Legality wouldn't be an issue. If you wanted to marry your horse, you'd just do it.

How many bullcrap bills will be passed because not enough people are looking at what they're voting on but lack the decency to not vote on it? How many people will weigh the consequences before voting?

This is where a new education system comes in. People just assume that this kind of thing would happen because our current education system doesn't even teach us anything close to critical thinking.

Who will bother to check our debts before voting yes on bills for projects that, despite being good, are just too expensive?

Without a monetary system, this issue won't exist.

Let's say we're attacked by Arab terrorists, and suddenly the majority of people want to revoke rights from all Arab citizens or kick them all out or worse, there is nothing to stop it.

Again, this is why a global anarchy would work best.

With a representative democracy, a democratic republic (like what we have), we can elect officials who can dedicate their time to be informed on the issues, weigh the consequences, determine what they feel is best.

I won't disagree with you that this is the way the system works, but I don't believe that the officials in political positions "determine what they feel is best" for the general public. They do it for themselves.

And if we don't like their decisions, we can kick them out.

Only to have them replaced by someone who is exactly the same, regardless of their political party.

Most people are smarter than you give them credit for.

I don't think that that's true, but I think that people have more potential to be smart than John gives them credit for.

though a great example of democracy, this is one city we're talking about. a larger population breeds apathy and ignorance. JD is right, the best solution to that is to have people represent the entire population.... and do it well.

What would be so bad about having a large amount of smaller Athens-like direct democracies?

 

[Cain]

For the problem of Democracy I look to the ancient city of Athens. It's a great citystate still remembered to this day. They practiced true democracy or at least the truest form I can think of. Almost anytime a decision was made everyone had to go to a coloseum like structure to sit and vote. This was as fair as it gets for everyone because everyone was considered a citizen every man woman and child, and slave. Problem 1 is that this stopped intelligent people from passing the right legislation because everyone had a say even your village idiot. Also, that meant the entire city had to funnel in to congress meaning for a period of time the entire city was shutdown, probably vunerable to attack aswell.

And then theres Sparta almost the opposite a warring state everyone even mothers worked for the state superceding all other matters including family.

Imperialist states are the most succesfull history wise (history means his story i.e the winner) their downfall comes when they reach the golden era they work for so hard which is complete control, with no more enemies to fight the fabric of their society breaks down.

Athens only allowed men to vote, and slaves weren't allowed either. And a law was passed at one time that said you had to have Athenian blood on both sides of the family. Foreign People couldn't vote, and were considered barbarians. I agree with everything else, just wanted to correct you on a few points.

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

What would be so bad about having a large amount of smaller Athens-like direct democracies?

because there are two kinds of histories. study of the past and recording it for the sake of recording it, and studying history for the sake of determining the best course of action in the present for the future. despite what you may think is the correct option, it's not a truly educated opinion in the grand scheme of things unless you consider what has happened before. in history, had your anarchistic utopia existed, it sure didn't last very long. history says that where there is society, there is greed. sociology says that your utopia is the most basic form of human life which, sure as a mathematical theorem, will evolve with conquest until centralized once again. the only time your anarchy would survive would be if we took everyone who saw things your way and shipped you off to live remotely. without a unified mindset, that society can never survive. it's not just political science, it's sociology and basic behavior for all life. instinct in its purest form.

 

[Arseface]

For the problem of Democracy I look to the ancient city of Athens. It's a great citystate still remembered to this day. They practiced true democracy or at least the truest form I can think of. Almost anytime a decision was made everyone had to go to a coloseum like structure to sit and vote. This was as fair as it gets for everyone because everyone was considered a citizen every man woman and child, and slave. Problem 1 is that this stopped intelligent people from passing the right legislation because everyone had a say even your village idiot. Also, that meant the entire city had to funnel in to congress meaning for a period of time the entire city was shutdown, probably vunerable to attack aswell.

Sorry Zarkes, but that's blatantly not true. Universal suffrage didn't become popular until the turn of the 20th century. Woman, children, foreigners (that includes anyone born in Athens to non-Athenian parents) and slaves were never allowed to vote. Of the 400,000 residents of Athens, only about 60,000 were eligible to vote.

 

[Noctus]

Ha, oh "anonymous". You have to stop your blatant cries for attention and your obvious unwarranted self-importance. I say anonymous in quotes because it's probably just a few newfags under the anonymous moniker.

WE ARE ANON WE R LEGUN!!!1RE2Q4FT86