Conquer Club

tzor wrote:I can't speak for others, but I've been pointing out that while the United States is very much a Democracy today it was not founded that way and the founing fathers would have thought it a four letter word.

Not according to the Federalist Papers.

There was a definite debate back then, some wanted another monarchy, others almost a theocracy. Few thought a man without land ... and definitely not women or men of color ... could think intelligently. BUT, that does not mean that "democracy" would have been a swear word to the entire group.

Ntetos wrote:By sending politicians away when they act evil will create a new problem. When they decide to take a bill which may be bad for certain people, even if it would be good in the long term, it will be very easy to rise the people against the politicians. That would lead all politicians to become populists, which will be a disaster. Of course this happens because of the elections and will always be a certain amount of populism, but by having politicians constantly under the threat of losing their power will only worsen the situation.

Restrictions have worked pretty well in most levels of government. In fact, the idea of term limits is gaining absolute ground. And precisely because it is seen as a way to limit political power.

I believe you are confusing the aristocracy, which is a seperate and unique class, with politicians, which arise from almost all levels of society in the US. "Politicians" are, in fact populists. And, they represent different factions. Not perhaps the completely separate factions that the media likes to present. BUT, there are various powers that compete and push forward various representatives. Just because the "true" divisions are not necessarily quite Democrat vs Republican, does not mean they don't exist.

btownmeggy wrote:

Hologram wrote:Can we just resolve this and say that the U.S. is a Constitutional Federal Republic, and that the easier (and just as accurate) way of saying that is "limited democracy"?

Thank you.

Well... I don't know if I'd say "limited"... but close enough. I'm willing to jump on the freedom wagon.

My stipulation on jumping on the bandwagon is MTG jumping on too. Otherwise, it is a fair compromise.

Jenos Ridan wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:

Hologram wrote:Can we just resolve this and say that the U.S. is a Constitutional Federal Republic, and that the easier (and just as accurate) way of saying that is "limited democracy"?

Thank you.

Well... I don't know if I'd say "limited"... but close enough. I'm willing to jump on the freedom wagon.

My stipulation on jumping on the bandwagon is MTG jumping on too. Otherwise, it is a fair compromise.

At this point, yes.

Sorry I'm late to this topic and just read the last page. Although no man can create the perfect government, there are some basic rules that at least see, to work.

The number 1 rule is to keep a good balance of power. In the case of the United States republic (notice I don’t say democracy.), people mistakenly think that the three powers of government (legislative, executive, judicial) were equal. In actual fact however, the main powers belong the legislative branch in that they have the power to evict presidents and fire judges, but they themselves are balanced between two houses. (1st called the house of representatives, which are elected directly by the people, 2nd called the Senate, which at the time of their creation were elected by the state Senates to give the states a say in the Government, but are now also elected by the people. These two houses were intended to be balanced and prevented the congress and states from becoming to powerful. This balance also kept the Executive and Judicial branches from becoming to powerful and with a well balanced government, kept a further balance between the states and the people themselves. There I think I’ve said that properly. Corrections are welcome.

decoulombe wrote:Sorry I'm late to this topic and just read the last page. Although no man can create the perfect government, there are some basic rules that at least see, to work.

The number 1 rule is to keep a good balance of power. In the case of the United States republic (notice I don’t say democracy.), people mistakenly think that the three powers of government (legislative, executive, judicial) were equal. In actual fact however, the main powers belong the legislative branch in that they have the power to evict presidents and fire judges, but they themselves are balanced between two houses. (1st called the house of representatives, which are elected directly by the people, 2nd called the Senate, which at the time of their creation were elected by the state Senates to give the states a say in the Government, but are now also elected by the people. These two houses were intended to be balanced and prevented the congress and states from becoming to powerful. This balance also kept the Executive and Judicial branches from becoming to powerful and with a well balanced government, kept a further balance between the states and the people themselves. There I think I’ve said that properly. Corrections are welcome.

Obvious John Locke fan.

decoulombe wrote:Sorry I'm late to this topic and just read the last page. Although no man can create the perfect government, there are some basic rules that at least see, to work.

The number 1 rule is to keep a good balance of power. In the case of the United States republic (notice I don’t say democracy.), people mistakenly think that the three powers of government (legislative, executive, judicial) were equal. In actual fact however, the main powers belong the legislative branch in that they have the power to evict presidents and fire judges, but they themselves are balanced between two houses. (1st called the house of representatives, which are elected directly by the people, 2nd called the Senate, which at the time of their creation were elected by the state Senates to give the states a say in the Government, but are now also elected by the people. These two houses were intended to be balanced and prevented the congress and states from becoming to powerful. This balance also kept the Executive and Judicial branches from becoming to powerful and with a well balanced government, kept a further balance between the states and the people themselves. There I think I’ve said that properly. Corrections are welcome.

It's worked for over 230 years but it has one tragic flaw: the populace must care to KEEP it.

Something Ben Franklin pointed out from day one would be a problem; if the people don't do their part, it all falls apart.

I'm going to go ahead and say Anarchy again because it has not been stressed enough. The reason I believe that this will work the best is by looking at every single other form of "archy" and determining that someone in that society has to be shit on in order for the government to function. No matter how you work it there will always be a lower class, (communism is the exception yes but unless your in the middle of an industrial revolution and you cancel out human greed this will never work) and when one man holds superiority over another man the situation is wrong and bound to fail. Thus having no government is the only response to the oppressive class system.

mastadon wrote:I'm going to go ahead and say Anarchy again because it has not been stressed enough. The reason I believe that this will work the best is by looking at every single other form of "archy" and determining that someone in that society has to be shit on in order for the government to function. No matter how you work it there will always be a lower class, (communism is the exception yes but unless your in the middle of an industrial revolution and you cancel out human greed this will never work) and when one man holds superiority over another man the situation is wrong and bound to fail. Thus having no government is the only response to the oppressive class system.

But doing that on a large scale (past maybe a good sized town or small city), all hell will break loose. And that's putting it nicely. Besides, a Republic is not an "archy."

muy_thaiguy wrote:

mastadon wrote:I'm going to go ahead and say Anarchy again because it has not been stressed enough. The reason I believe that this will work the best is by looking at every single other form of "archy" and determining that someone in that society has to be shit on in order for the government to function. No matter how you work it there will always be a lower class, (communism is the exception yes but unless your in the middle of an industrial revolution and you cancel out human greed this will never work) and when one man holds superiority over another man the situation is wrong and bound to fail. Thus having no government is the only response to the oppressive class system.

But doing that on a large scale (past maybe a good sized town or small city), all hell will break loose. And that's putting it nicely. Besides, a Republic is not an "archy."

Well not quite, because anarchy is the absence of any kind of government, and as such countries would disappear, and quite possibly large cities. Humankind would undoubtedly be "reduced" to tribal communes with the sole purpose of surviving, because advancing would not have a place in anarchy.

Obviously, this would have to happen worldwide simultaneously, probably by some kind of apocalyptic event, but that's how true anarchy is supposed to work, not to be confused with the punk rock version of anarchy where all they want is the ability to have sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll. Of course, they can just go to Amsterdam for that, but whatever.

Hologram wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

mastadon wrote:I'm going to go ahead and say Anarchy again because it has not been stressed enough. The reason I believe that this will work the best is by looking at every single other form of "archy" and determining that someone in that society has to be shit on in order for the government to function. No matter how you work it there will always be a lower class, (communism is the exception yes but unless your in the middle of an industrial revolution and you cancel out human greed this will never work) and when one man holds superiority over another man the situation is wrong and bound to fail. Thus having no government is the only response to the oppressive class system.

But doing that on a large scale (past maybe a good sized town or small city), all hell will break loose. And that's putting it nicely. Besides, a Republic is not an "archy."

Well not quite, because anarchy is the absence of any kind of government, and as such countries would disappear, and quite possibly large cities. Humankind would undoubtedly be "reduced" to tribal communes with the sole purpose of surviving, because advancing would not have a place in anarchy.

Obviously, this would have to happen worldwide simultaneously, probably by some kind of apocalyptic event, but that's how true anarchy is supposed to work, not to be confused with the punk rock version of anarchy where all they want is the ability to have sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll. Of course, they can just go to Amsterdam for that, but whatever.

So, other then a world wide cataclysmic event, all hell will break loose if people were to try anarchy.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Hologram wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

mastadon wrote:I'm going to go ahead and say Anarchy again because it has not been stressed enough. The reason I believe that this will work the best is by looking at every single other form of "archy" and determining that someone in that society has to be shit on in order for the government to function. No matter how you work it there will always be a lower class, (communism is the exception yes but unless your in the middle of an industrial revolution and you cancel out human greed this will never work) and when one man holds superiority over another man the situation is wrong and bound to fail. Thus having no government is the only response to the oppressive class system.

But doing that on a large scale (past maybe a good sized town or small city), all hell will break loose. And that's putting it nicely. Besides, a Republic is not an "archy."

Well not quite, because anarchy is the absence of any kind of government, and as such countries would disappear, and quite possibly large cities. Humankind would undoubtedly be "reduced" to tribal communes with the sole purpose of surviving, because advancing would not have a place in anarchy.

Obviously, this would have to happen worldwide simultaneously, probably by some kind of apocalyptic event, but that's how true anarchy is supposed to work, not to be confused with the punk rock version of anarchy where all they want is the ability to have sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll. Of course, they can just go to Amsterdam for that, but whatever.

So, other then a world wide cataclysmic event, all hell will break loose if people were to try anarchy.

Yeah, pretty much.

Hologram wrote:Well not quite, because anarchy is the absence of any kind of government, and as such countries would disappear, and quite possibly large cities. Humankind would undoubtedly be "reduced" to tribal communes with the sole purpose of surviving, because advancing would not have a place in anarchy.

But this is the reason why anarchy simply is impossible unless it is imposed on high through a very complex process. Those small tribal communes will naturally form a government of sorts. You might also say that whenever two or three or more are gathered for any reason whatsoever, politics will be there and organization will follow. It is, in a sence, "hard wired" (oh noes I used that term) into us.

You almost have to have a process to deliberately break up the ant hills in order for long term anarchy to continue.

muy_thaiguy wrote:But doing that on a large scale (past maybe a good sized town or small city), all hell will break loose. And that's putting it nicely. Besides, a Republic is not an "archy."

Archy is a word the comes from Greek and denotes leadership or government, so yes in fact a Republic is an Archy.

Hologram wrote:Well not quite, because anarchy is the absence of any kind of government, and as such countries would disappear, and quite possibly large cities. Humankind would undoubtedly be "reduced" to tribal communes with the sole purpose of surviving, because advancing would not have a place in anarchy.

Obviously, this would have to happen worldwide simultaneously, probably by some kind of apocalyptic event, but that's how true anarchy is supposed to work, not to be confused with the punk rock version of anarchy where all they want is the ability to have sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll. Of course, they can just go to Amsterdam for that, but whatever.

First let me say that it pleases me greatly to see that you understand Anarchy. And yes I too understand that if right now we were to move to Anarchy it would require some kind of apocalyptic event. I do not want this event, but if it is necessary than I think that it should happen, even if I have to die in the process. I also understand that Anarchy is a theology for all intents and purposes without said event. But I feel that just to dismiss is it as such is to never hope or dream for something better than what we have.

tzor wrote:But this is the reason why anarchy simply is impossible unless it is imposed on high through a very complex process. Those small tribal communes will naturally form a government of sorts. You might also say that whenever two or three or more are gathered for any reason whatsoever, politics will be there and organization will follow. It is, in a sence, "hard wired" (oh noes I used that term) into us.

You almost have to have a process to deliberately break up the ant hills in order for long term anarchy to continue.

Groups of people large and small can group together and function very easily without a power system. No government action is needed in the group because if a section within the group wishes to live differently then they go make their group, and suddenly everyones happy. It really isn't that hard to understand anarchy, every time you do something without being told or ordered your being an anarchist. Also, politics are not "hard wired" into us, we have just been molded into believing that government is absolutely necessary or we will die. Human beings were alive for thousands of years with out government dictating their daily actions.

mastadon wrote:Groups of people large and small can group together and function very easily without a power system. No government action is needed in the group because if a section within the group wishes to live differently then they go make their group, and suddenly everyones happy.

This is democracy, with a twist of separation ... its not anarchy.

It really isn't that hard to understand anarchy, every time you do something without being told or ordered your being an anarchist.

No, you are usually following rules, just not necessarily orders.

Also, politics are not "hard wired" into us, we have just been molded into believing that government is absolutely necessary or we will die.

No, we won't die, but we will be subject to whichever bully is strongest and feels like being a bully at the moment. How many bullies do you know who really and truly back down just because someone says "please". No, bullies are kept in control (though not entirely, it is true) by authority or threats of recrimination. This is absent in anarchy. It is a "free for all"

]Human beings were alive for thousands of years with out government dictating their daily actions.

Not sure where you get this idea. Structures exist even amongst the apes, which are a good deal below us humans. Every bit of archeological data I have seen indicates there was structure of some type even before there were actual human beings. Generally, we see Neandrathals and such as being knitted into loose family groups and clans, but some think there is even greater structure than this. Perhaps even religions. And that is well before true humans came on the scene.

(and if you happen to be a Creationist, then of course humans had God and structure from the start -- the religion changed, but was always there).

Basically. Of course there will always be the natural leaders who are able to make the decisions that need to be made, but that does not necessarily imply any kind of government, just that there's a smart person that knows what's what and what needs to be done. He doesn't necessarily act any kind of authority on anyone except maybe his presence as an individual.

Anarchy, if you consider it to be a type of governing system (the people govern themselves).

Joodoo wrote:Anarchy, if you consider it to be a type of governing system (the people govern themselves).

It's not a governing system. That's why it's called anarchy, broken down into latin roots, that's without government (a=without/not, archy=government).

Anarchy is
(i) a personal thing, almost a philosophy: I am responsible for my own actions, I will decide wehter to obey your rules (e.g. should I pay your taxes, or should I throw your tea in Boston harbour? or, should I fight in Vietnam when I believe it to be wrong or should I burn my draft card?))
(ii) What happens everywhere all the time no matter what we think is going on. It doesn't matter if you are obeying orders when you torture someone, it is still you, individually who is doing it. Every bomb dropped, every bullet fired, every guillotine released, was dropped , fired, or released by an individual, not an air force, a soldier or an executioner. Every good deed is also done by an individual.

Anarchy is not (or not principally - anything we do we do ourselves)
(i) people in long coats carrying round bombs with the word "bomb" on them
(ii) people with safety pins through their faces pissing on decency and regard for fellow-human beings. This is more nihilism.

"Anarchy" is often used as a scare word "we can't do that, it would mean sheer anarchy". This is a misunderstanding.

Since Anarchy is not possible to implement on the large scale, I call for a motion to remove the "proposal" from the discussion.*


*Parliamentary method, love it.

The point is that governments fail their people, and what the pioneers of governments originally wanted. This being a fact I choose to believe that no government should be in place. Regardless of human life lost or catastrophe or whatever will happen it will never match what governments in the past have done and what governments in the future will do. Theology or not, at least I hope for a better world. A world in which only the laws of nature dictate what a human being does or when they die.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

mastadon wrote:Groups of people large and small can group together and function very easily without a power system. No government action is needed in the group because if a section within the group wishes to live differently then they go make their group, and suddenly everyones happy.

This is democracy, with a twist of separation ... its not anarchy.

By the definition that most anarchists love to use, it is.

The nail in the coffin: impossible to implement outside of the scalest of scales (dozens or less), and even then a hierarchy will form based on the attributes of the people involved: physically robust survivors will do alot of the work while the brainier sorts will innovate new tools, etc.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

mastadon wrote:It really isn't that hard to understand anarchy, every time you do something without being told or ordered your being an anarchist.

No, you are usually following rules, just not necessarily orders.

Exactly. And any sort of society will have to have rules of some sort to keep the society from failing apart. Especially if you intend to keep bullies from setting up a power-based hierarchy due to there physical strength or heartless brutallity (Rule throught fear of force rather than force itself. Browny points to the Sci-fi nerd who can tell me were I stole that from).

PLAYER57832 wrote:

mastadon wrote:Also, politics are not "hard wired" into us, we have just been molded into believing that government is absolutely necessary or we will die.

No, we won't die, but we will be subject to whichever bully is strongest and feels like being a bully at the moment. How many bullies do you know who really and truly back down just because someone says "please". No, bullies are kept in control (though not entirely, it is true) by authority or threats of recrimination. This is absent in anarchy. It is a "free for all"

Again, correct.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

mastadon wrote:Human beings were alive for thousands of years with out government dictating their daily actions.

Not sure where you get this idea.

Me neither. I'll right this off as the effects of pot.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Structures exist even amongst the apes, which are a good deal below us humans. Every bit of archeological data I have seen indicates there was structure of some type even before there were actual human beings. Generally, we see Neandrathals and such as being knitted into loose family groups and clans, but some think there is even greater structure than this. Perhaps even religions. And that is well before true humans came on the scene.

Good point.

Again, motion to remove anarchy from the discussion called.

Jenos Ridan wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

mastadon wrote:Human beings were alive for thousands of years with out government dictating their daily actions.

Not sure where you get this idea.

Me neither. I'll right this off as the effects of pot.

Let me explain that when I bring up these humans, I am referencing the fourth and fifth millennium BCE.

Also, please do not make assumptions about me because i enjoy marijuana, that has nothing to do with this forum and I would appreciate it if it were to be left out.

i think communism is a wonderful form of government.
why?
i think because most people arn't smart enough to rule themselves, they don't have enough self-control or brain power.
communism, in its true and correct form, is a wonderful idea. i havnt seen a extremely succesful communistic government, but thats because the leaders don't follow the rules.....
if, a communistic goverment was set up, and everyone in charge followed their laws, then i think it would be extremely succesful government...
thats just what i think....

mastadon wrote:Groups of people large and small can group together and function very easily without a power system. No government action is needed in the group because if a section within the group wishes to live differently then they go make their group, and suddenly everyones happy.

No really, it is practically impossible. Government literally happens. Even when you get small groups that can freely leave the group these things happen. I've seen this happen in groups as diverse as the Knights of Columbus and the Barbershop Harmony Society. Some people will naturally lead, some people will naturally follow, and some people will naturally organize, take minutes and create complex bylaws.