|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:38 pm
the internet has already created a new form of tribal society in which people form clusters of fairly close groups based on common interests needs or identities.
why not set up a society that way?
it would avoid many problems of centralized government such as depersonalization and lack of responsiveness.
it ought to maximize freedom since each tribe could make its own internal rules but membership would be voluntary.
i am looking for ways to maximize personal freedom while allowing for some mutual aid and support and this seems like an uninvestigated possibility.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:17 am
Small groups have many good points, but the negatives far outweigh them.
Most small tribes exist out of neccesity, usually because of limited resources that would endanger larger groups. For areas with an abundance of resources, small groups would have difficulty managing and collecting these resources, but the human element must also be examined. With small groups and no overriding control many people will take their "tribes" to war and conflict, and control of the economy would quickly find itself in the hands of the least meritable people.
Depersonalization and lack of responsiveness are valid issues, but that's why we have a multi-tiered system. Each town can be considered a tribe, but over that is the state goverment, and finally the national goverment. Of course, more power and control to the individual towns would be a great boon, but there lies a problem with the fact that there are far more mayors and lower officials then there are senators and congressmen combined, making the chances for corrupt and inept ones higher (the chances, simply. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more corrupt senators and congressmen.)
The internet presents interesting models, but there's major differences that need to be identified. Monetary matters are secondary, location is negligible, and fighting is usually little more than a game. Taking political models from the internet should be done with a grain of salt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flip of Darkstar Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:49 pm
There's also the problem of land. If your tribe is supposed to be autonomous, IE run its own justice system of whatever sort and produce its own food and have borders and whatnot, where are you going to get the land from?
I mean, there are some really shitty-assed places like Somalia or Haiti where you could probably carve out a niche for yourself by killing everyone around, but frankly, there are probably more Somalis or Haitians willing to kill you than you've got bullets... Or you could do the crazy splinter-Mormon thing and buy some land in ********, Utah, and then brainwash everyone in your community into believing that if they don't do what you say, they'll go to hell... but that's kind of immoral.
I think land would be a pretty big problem...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:10 pm
Sylphi There's also the problem of land. If your tribe is supposed to be autonomous, IE run its own justice system of whatever sort and produce its own food and have borders and whatnot, where are you going to get the land from? I mean, there are some really shitty-assed places like Somalia or Haiti where you could probably carve out a niche for yourself by killing everyone around, but frankly, there are probably more Somalis or Haitians willing to kill you than you've got bullets... Or you could do the crazy splinter-Mormon thing and buy some land in ********, Utah, and then brainwash everyone in your community into believing that if they don't do what you say, they'll go to hell... but that's kind of immoral. I think land would be a pretty big problem... that is a pretty good point
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:32 am
Wraths_Kin Sylphi There's also the problem of land. If your tribe is supposed to be autonomous, IE run its own justice system of whatever sort and produce its own food and have borders and whatnot, where are you going to get the land from? I mean, there are some really shitty-assed places like Somalia or Haiti where you could probably carve out a niche for yourself by killing everyone around, but frankly, there are probably more Somalis or Haitians willing to kill you than you've got bullets... Or you could do the crazy splinter-Mormon thing and buy some land in ********, Utah, and then brainwash everyone in your community into believing that if they don't do what you say, they'll go to hell... but that's kind of immoral. I think land would be a pretty big problem... that is a pretty good point maybe in the new world of virtual reality we won't need land? we already have cyber-money without real banks to go to, for instance. and i go to college online intead of at a physical campus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:33 pm
chessiejo Wraths_Kin Sylphi There's also the problem of land. If your tribe is supposed to be autonomous, IE run its own justice system of whatever sort and produce its own food and have borders and whatnot, where are you going to get the land from? I mean, there are some really shitty-assed places like Somalia or Haiti where you could probably carve out a niche for yourself by killing everyone around, but frankly, there are probably more Somalis or Haitians willing to kill you than you've got bullets... Or you could do the crazy splinter-Mormon thing and buy some land in ********, Utah, and then brainwash everyone in your community into believing that if they don't do what you say, they'll go to hell... but that's kind of immoral. I think land would be a pretty big problem... that is a pretty good point maybe in the new world of virtual reality we won't need land? we already have cyber-money without real banks to go to, for instance. and i go to college online instead of at a physical campus. But people's physical bodies must exist outside this virtual realm. Our food and shelters cannot be of this virtual world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:42 am
Which is why semi-tribal communities are practically necessary. Land is limited, as are resources, and population is still steadily climbing. The only option - as far as I can tell - to encourage global sustainability is to encourage sustainability in every small region (city, town, community, tribe, etc.). By removing the corporate involvement in these communities - forcing each corporation to clean up ALL of its own waste - each community can then be shouldered with the same responsibility. But in the very near future, sustainability is key.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:24 pm
I believe that some day, one person, or one people, be they a counry or a small monarchy or dictatorship will rule the world as one nation. It is only a matter of time untill the world falls into the controll of one. Since the world is headed (in my opinion) in that direction, why stop it? Just be the ones to take controll.
Within the one gvmt there should be groups for people of different religion and people that just group together, and they could be like states in a world nation.
I think that sounds good...
No national religion. The would cause problems. Because what other nations would the earth nation have to interact with? No national language either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:04 am
I have to disagree on the "no national language" part. While language is inherently a part of local culture, and we don't want to destroy any local cultures to be sure, language is first and foremost a tool of communication. For a global nation to proliferate, the exchange of ideas must be simple and immediate. It wouldn't be right to force everyone to speak only one language, but to be successful in modern society you still need to speak several languages.
I find national language akin to national currency; it is required if, for no other reason, than ease of use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:36 am
Having no national language is what translators are for. Translators would be out of work if one language was spoken universally.
And in an ideal society, the use of currency would not be needed anymore. But that society is still thousands of years ahead of and behind us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 7:20 pm
Translators are not always accurate, and the use of them impedes communication.
When you need to communicate to the masses quickly and accurately, you don't want to worry about taking the time to translate into every known language.
Having a national language, that every citizen must know would be necessary to ensure the success of any multinational government, where the federal level has more power that the rest. In a confederation, or similar system, a national language would not be as necessary because the local governments are powerful enough to deal with their problems without the aid of others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 7:40 pm
Another drawback of using translators is that the meanings can be distorted and possibly a state could regulate all translators and insure that certain information is censored so that the public remains unaware.
As for implementation of an official language, it would be unfair to use any current language, we would be saying that some people are better than others.
While nations are still being annexed into the omni-government, we should be flexible and bend to the needs of each nation. As these governments are unified as a world, only then could an official language be implemented.
Past attempt at creating world languages have failed, so I suggest succeeding this time. If a group is formed with people representing each language and nation and many linguists to assist and help, it might be possible to create a truly special, and functional language that the world could accept.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 6:45 am
To simply add to what Myslec and Aperium said, translators would still have jobs. To create a global language will not destroy the languages that aren't there; just as coming to America doesn't mean abandoning your old culture. All it means is that people will have a simpler time communicating with each other. We'd still need researchers and linguists of the old languages to learn more about the culture and writings; after all, we still need some very important texts translated. Some of which can't be ever translated accurately, in which case a researcher would still have to employ a linguist to learn the new language.
Besides, what's wrong with all the translators being out of work? The creation of an international government *will* involve the dislocation of many current jobs and the creation of new ones. Even simple shifts in the global economy will do that.
In a *perfect* society (with perfect people), currency will have no use. But in an ideal society, people still need motivation and the chance to move ahead, and currency (or one of its alternates) will always be present.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:18 pm
even if we wnd up with some nominal "global government", it will be too big to be workable.
people will organize into convenient clusters, based on common interests.
look at Russia, or eastern europe.
are nations getting bigger there, swallowing others?
no, that was an 18th and 19th century model.
now, places like estonia and slovakia have found that they can do just fone on their own, thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:46 am
The problem with using such a model for the real world is:
one, that would mean each group closes themselves off from any other group,
two, not enough variations in what people can do to sustain themselves, three, people have many different interests that could place them in multiple "tribes",
four, sounds waaay too much like high school with "cliques"
However, a multi-tiered set-up, as Flip said, would work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
