|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:36 pm
A place to debate anything government related, or just which form of government you see as the best one.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:55 pm
ANARCHY
Yeah, I am an anarchist - but at the same time (just as my religion and sexuality goes) I am a panarchist (I like to mix up bits and pieces of all governments). I like to mix up the following, but through and through, would love a bit of anarchism~
technocracy there are two meaning to this one, one of which I support almost as much as anarchy; the other is just a good idea. A technocracy is a government where the most intelligent people rule; but some people also view it as a society that would be more functional with better technology. I support both greatly
gerontocracy better known as a system of elders; where the oldest person rules - this is probably due to my otherworldly beliefs...
ochlocracy is... well, it is kinda like anarchism, the majority chooses... normally via mob. I dunno, this is mildly havocous, but in an agreeable society, this could work nicely...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:12 pm
Hey, we can finally debate over something! But first, I would like to get this out in the open. I do not believe that any one form of government can be the best for each country, and while I do think that the ideas behind Democracy are good ones, this system, along with many others, does not work well because of the way it's carried out. I also like the idea of an Anarchy or Communism, but as I've said before, I don't feel that any government could be completely successful due to human nature. As for Technocracy, I've never heard of it before, but I'm glad you brought it to my attention. A society ruled by its most intelligent members would be the best in my eyes, and technology is quite helpful as well.
For the debate: I'm against the idea of someone ruling just because of age, class, etc. I believe that if someone is going to make all of your country's major decisions, that person had better be qualified to do so. I'm also against the idea of mobs, because that's more like saying that the strongest group wins, and is similar in that retrospect to allowing the oldest person to rule simply because he or she is old. I do, however, support revolutions/rebellions (which could also be said to favor strength) as that involves changing a system of government that doesn't work, or doesn't favor the general public, and if those rebels think they have a better idea, then by all means change it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:21 pm
 >> Only the blackest of hearts
*nods* Communism is good - preferably Titoism or Marxism... either way, it is better then capitalism... and as for the whole mob/age thing - I am just anti-"The System" so anything involving mobs rebelling against the government and then proceeding to take over does nothing more then amuse me; and as I said before - my otherworldly beliefs make me inclined towards the idea of elders (not to mention - the whole anti-TS thing makes me revel in the idea of senile people running a government)
Can feel the purest of love <<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:32 pm
Yes, I prefer Karl Marx's system myself. The fact that you would be amused as your government continued to be in a state of chaos, or have someone ruling who was incapable of making any important decisions, however, I would never understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:36 pm
>> Only the blackest of hearts
That, mon cheri, is why I am an anarchist - because humans are incapable of running themselves, and I enjoy nothing more in this world then utter chaos, destruction, and the fall of mankind. Except perhaps yaoi... Anyway, I prefer Titoism to Marxism (Titoism: characterized by policies and practices based on the principle that in each country, the means of attaining ultimate communist goals must be dictated by the conditions of that particular country, rather than by a pattern set in another country).
Can feel the purest of love <<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:48 pm
That's true as well, and pretty much the same thing I said in my opening post, that the same form of government could never work for everyone and, ultimately, humans will never be able to perfect any of them due to their rather... destructive nature. While I enjoy roleplaying an anarchist character in a world torn by war, I would by no means enjoy living it. I don't care for chaos in reality, and would much prefer it if humans could solve their problems peacefully, though that doesn't seem to be in human nature either. I would support disarmament if I trusted the other countries enough not to build weapons in secret... or own to be able to prevent another war.
Hm, human nature; we could make a debate thread just for that, or the meaning of good and evil. So many debatable topics...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:53 pm
>> Only the blackest of hearts
Go - make more, I am bored... politics bore me (probably another part of my reasoning for being an anarchist) - and no, it is not in human nature to induce World Peace. Because, humans are selfish - inevitably, ALL humans are selfish. You may say they aren't... for instance: saving somebody you love's life. .... well, you love them - you don't them dead. Saving somebody you hate's life... you look like a great, selfless, and loving person doing this; and you get the self-satisfaction of knowing you did something right by doing this. It is selfish.
Anyway... yeah, it is but my nature to enjoy chaos - why? I do not know.
Can feel the purest of love <<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:59 pm
I agree, humans are selfish. And you're right, everything they do, while it may seem like the selfless saving of lives, they will get a sense of accomplishment that they enjoy, or it may be the fame that is to their liking, and yes, saving someone you care about is beneficial to the people who couldn't imagine living without them. I, on the other hand, would never do something and attempt to call it selfless. I'm a selfish person, and proud of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:02 pm
>> Only the blackest of hearts
Agreed. I do not hide anything about myself, and the fact that I am a selfish penny-pincher is one of them. We could make a debate about Human Psychology...
Back on the topic of the government - I think there is something that the three mods here can ALL agree on:
George W. Bush
Can feel the purest of love <<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:15 pm
Yes! We are all in agreement. Seriously, he might not be a bad person, especially if you're comparing him to the masses, but not for president. I think he could have handled many of the country's matters better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:43 pm
>> Only the blackest of hearts
Yeah... I'm sure he could have made a nice............. preschool teacher, or something. But, politically, not so good. Now, I would like to see Al Gore run in 2008 - I think he would make an awesome president - back when he ran against Bush, he was just "well... it's either him or... Bush" but now, especially after An Inconvenient Truth
Can feel the purest of love <<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:52 pm
Yeah, he could have made a nice... (insert job that doesn't involve making a country's major decisions here). I did like Al Gore as a cantidate, and it would be nice if he ran again, but as long as there's one good choice for president, and the country picks him, the state of things might improve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:28 am
I do have to say that I am leaning towards Anarchism right now but alot of that has to do with the way the government is beind led right now...Also I like the aspect of Technocracy and Gerontocracy because of the fact that being led by the most intelligent people and/or the eldest would seem the wisest because they all know what had happened with the government before them and would potentially be able to stop some parts of history from restarting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:48 pm
>> Only the blackest of hearts
Good show mate ~ I believe the US could implore a bit of technocracy... at least a little, incy-tincy, little bit - I mean... Ms. Burns (for non-ESM students - a teacher in our school) is probably smarter then the one we have now...
Ms. Murphy for El Presidente!
---
Anarchism is the winning for of government, what on Earth does that say about our society?
Can feel the purest of love <<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
