View Full Version : Government
It seems the old thread was deleted or something.
In that thread, i expressed that I was against anarchy. Now, however, I call myself an anarchist.
Now, if you do not know what anarchy is, it is a political doctrine in which there is no governing body over you. Anarchy has taken on a negative connotation, often associated with chaos and violence. While some anarchists may decide to take a violent approach to achieving anarchy, many, like myself, try to achieve anarchy through non-violence.
I believe living in an anarchy is ideal, for each person would be able to make decisions for himself, and always be able to do things in his own self-interest.
I'm just scratchin the surface, so lets discuss, shall we?
King Vamp
07-25-2006, 11:59 PM
Its good that you would take a non-violent approach to Anarchy. But that does not mean EVERYONE would, If EVERYONE would be calm and nice. Wait would most likely happen is. When it will be announced that there was no law or government. There would be instant violence and thievery. If there was some kind of insurance that there was none of that, I would consider it.
Sounds a lot like Marxist-Lennist Communism. Therefore, I approve.
I Actually Thought About This Topic Last Night, It Annoyed Me Because Every Bad Thing About Anarchy Basically Happens Any Way. Set Aside A Few Things, With No Goverment Order Couldnt Exist People Could Murder Your Parents And Nobody Would Even Notice Or Care, Same Goes For Robbing, Accidents Etc. And Who Would Pay People To Make Currency Or Grow Food The People Who Did That Would Be Quickly Robbed. Because There Is No Punishment For What People Would Do To Each Other And There Things Nothing But Chaos Would Become Of It :/ Then Again I May Be Just Be Seeing One Side Im Interested In What Other People Have to say about this.
^
l Edited
King Vamp
07-26-2006, 12:06 AM
I believe living in an anarchy is ideal, for each person would be able to make decisions for himself, and always be able to do things in his own self-interest.
How? We really already have that. The only thing we have to do beside that is get a job, and that wont change.
V.VELDANEN
07-26-2006, 12:25 AM
Nah it wouldn't last, in the end, humans cannot live alone and will eventually band together just to pool resources. The many different groups with different ideals will eventually produce a leader that leads that group...
It is more of a question of economical progression and productive efficiency of a society.
Moreover, I don't see how Anarchy can be introduced into a society in its pure form.
@006: continue capitalizing your words and you'll find people ignoring your post.
Nah it wouldn't last, in the end, humans cannot live alone and will eventually band together just to pool resources. The many different groups with different ideals will eventually produce a leader that leads that group...
It is more of a question of economical progression and productive efficiency of a society.
Moreover, I don't see how Anarchy can be introduced into a society in its pure form.
@006: continue capitalizing your words and you'll find people ignoring your post.
1st: I Have To Agree With V.Veldanen
2nd. yea sorry with the caps thing i try to quit but its habit and your also right about people ignoring it. xD
King Vamp
07-26-2006, 01:30 AM
No offence Bap. Anarchy = END OF THE WORLD!
Its good that you would take a non-violent approach to Anarchy. But that does not mean EVERYONE would, If EVERYONE would be calm and nice. Wait would most likely happen is. When it will be announced that there was no law or government. There would be instant violence and thievery. If there was some kind of insurance that there was none of that, I would consider it.
Yes, I know. I said i believed it is ideal. But until people start using reason, it is not practical. Throwing aside religion, morality can be determined through human-nature. We are self-owning by nature. We do not want to be slaves. Through reason we can determine that imposing on someone else is evil. If we maintained our own self-interest without conflicting with anyone else's self-interest, then all is well. If people put their own interest first, then there would be no reason for theft or murder.
Scenario:
Man kills another man after an argument. The first man would be shunned from society, for no one would want a murderer in their area. The people wouldn't be able to kick him out, for they do not have authority over them, but they can choose not to have anything to do with him.
There would always be peopel to grow food. They could keep what they needed for themselves, and sell the rest for money. People could grow their own food if they didn't want to buy any.
Everyone could do what they wanted to keep their happiness. There are always at least two sides to governmental matters. Someone always loses. With anarchy, everyone is a winner. No oen would be forced to do anything they didn't want to do. Also for this reason, there would be an absolute free-market economy.
And Octo, Communism, even in its purest form, is not anarchy. Communism limits individual control over his property and production.
It will take radical change to happen for anarchy to work. The responsibility of the individual will have to increase. Everyone will have to learn to use reason. I think it was Petrarch that said that everyone human had the capability to reason, but not everyone used it. It is the goal of anarchy to have everyone use reason, instead of just have the capability.
Also, here is a great website that goes into great detail the ideas explained here.
http://www.tolfa.us
Yes, its a US website, but it can apply to everyone.
EDIT: A question. Why do you want government?
kjrav
07-26-2006, 02:47 AM
Makes me feel safer cause I know that there are rules and penalties though they may not always be practiced to their full extent they are still there and enforced.I may be ignorant to think the rules will always protect me and myintrest but Ignorance is bliss alot of the times and right now mt happines is what I pursue.
King Vamp
07-26-2006, 03:00 AM
You know every other contry would Come and bomb us.
And I agree with kjrav
V.VELDANEN
07-26-2006, 04:15 AM
Why do people need government?
Government is merely an organization, a committee if you like, think it not as a power than dominate its people rather, it is the collective voice of the people within an economy and nation to decide on the long term strategic goals. The flow of which taxes go, infrastuctures to build, roads to build and connect strategic points of a country and yes, to establish law and order and to serve as a diplomatic representative to other countries.
Not only that, the government serve as a monitor for a country's growth and development, formulating the necessary policies to assist weak sectors and build up important technologies.
I've been through the initial pages of TOLFA, while I have not gone through it all. It seems that they are being a little shortsighted on the big picture, not to mention a little too naive on certain issues.
The government doesn't any buildings that we would need if there was no government. And all roads could be toll roads. And we would be free of taxes.
If everyone understood what it means to live in an anarchy, then anyone of these people could speak to a government official as well as any other.
I don't think the government wants us to advance in technology that can help us. It pays more if the people have to do multiple things to reach a goal.
And what reason would a country have as to attack this society? Domination? If the people don't want a government, then there would be no government. An attacker could be fended off. After all, what keeps these anarchists from defending? Everyone could freely buy weapons.
kjrav
07-26-2006, 04:47 AM
I don't think anarchy is bad it's just not how I choose to live my life,simple as that.
V.VELDANEN
07-26-2006, 04:49 AM
Obviously you have yet to consider the larger implications of a city/society/country without strategic planning, and an ample knowledge of Economics.
This anarchy thingie, very much like Classical Economics, seems to be based of many simple assumptions that the average person are rational beings that responds to simple Supply and Demand, where there are demand, there are supply, end of story. But the actual fact that, there are many unforseen and unpredictable events that will lead to market failure, which eventually will cause someone to lose out. There is only so much a society can demand, and when people becomes frustrated of being a loser, be assured that the agony of being defeated is not to be underestimated.
To whom the roads belong to? Can any Tom, Dick and Harry build their own roads and path their ways to fortune? If one person made it, the other will compete by paving another road?
Soon you will have tolls on every end of the road.
Buildings..land...property, recognised currency...? Who decides whose whome? The one with the bigger gun?
I'm sorry, but I still fail to see how anarchy is going to control all these things when people are going to be of their own masters.
I agree with V. Anarchy couldn't keep our society up economically. Without someone making currency we'd revert back to bartering. Without companies making machinery we wouldn't have any machines. And you'll say, but the government doesn't own companies. Where do companies get metal from? Other countries. And without a government how do we import and export and keep up trade with other countries. It just wouldn't work in our society. Maybe in a feudal like society, but not our high tech civilization. I think all Anarchy would do is cause us to revert back into blubbering fools.
Corporations could not buy metal from the other countries?
Government owned land would need to be distributed in a way everyone is satisfied. I do agree that it would be hard, but I do think it is possible.
And as for money? Money is merely a medium of exchange. In a barter system, Man A would trade (eg) his loaf of bread for Man B's water. Now, Man A would get what he wanted, and Man B would get what he wanted. Neither were forced to accept the other item.
Later, money was introduced as a medium of exchange. Man A gave his money for some water, and Man B used that money for his loaf of bread.
In an anarchy, we could barter if we wanted to. Or we could negotiate a medium of exchange. Gold, for example.
And so what if you have tolls on every road? You want to reach Point A in a quick amount of time, so you pay a reasonable price to drive on someone's road. If you didn't want to pay, then you could walk.
And V., what kind of market failure would happen? There would be a free-market. No one would be forced into any agreement they didn't want to be. Everything would be individually managed, therefore failure would not spread throughout the people.
kjrav
07-26-2006, 05:30 PM
That is the idealistic form of Anarchy,but I doubt humans would sustain a high moral standard.
I Cant really argue this well but, whats so horrible about what we already live in we already have trade vehicles etc. In fact this in the only country people shouldnt complain in considering we are the strongest and most generous country in the world. Why throw everything we have built up in the past hundreds of years. This countrys the most 'freedom' you will ever get, its not like if we ever do this other countries will not try to take our land, with everybody seperated other countries could easily take over and fforce there rules, religion on us. Why have that?
kjrav
07-26-2006, 06:21 PM
The point of anarchy is not to be seperated but too have the ability to make your own descisions.
Can We Not Make Our Own Decisions? Of Course If Its Anything Bad We Will Have To Pay The Price But Thats Why We Have At Least Some Order In Our Country
kjrav
07-26-2006, 06:34 PM
Right but as free as we are our society has limitations on things thay some think there shouldn't be limitations on.I personally don't agree w/t anarchy but I do understand it some what.
V.VELDANEN
07-26-2006, 08:52 PM
Corporations could not buy metal from the other countries?
Government owned land would need to be distributed in a way everyone is satisfied. I do agree that it would be hard, but I do think it is possible.
And as for money? Money is merely a medium of exchange. In a barter system, Man A would trade (eg) his loaf of bread for Man B's water. Now, Man A would get what he wanted, and Man B would get what he wanted. Neither were forced to accept the other item.
Later, money was introduced as a medium of exchange. Man A gave his money for some water, and Man B used that money for his loaf of bread.
In an anarchy, we could barter if we wanted to. Or we could negotiate a medium of exchange. Gold, for example.
And so what if you have tolls on every road? You want to reach Point A in a quick amount of time, so you pay a reasonable price to drive on someone's road. If you didn't want to pay, then you could walk.
And V., what kind of market failure would happen? There would be a free-market. No one would be forced into any agreement they didn't want to be. Everything would be individually managed, therefore failure would not spread throughout the people.
Just so you know, money evolutes FROM gold. The concept of money exist the same time as bank does, where gold owners deposit their gold in 3rd party vaults and in return, gets a receipt for the gold. As time goes by, people found it troublesome to get gold out of their safehouses and end up using receipts as a medium for exchange - to exchange ownership of the gold in the vaults :D Eventually = receipts becomes money
Barter, is trade in its most primitive and inefficient way. So undoubtly, this is already a weak point in Anarchy.
I apologize for being vague in respect of market failure, but thats precisely it, not everybody has the same abilities as the person to the next, the assumption of people being rational beings, equal opportunities and being as capable make your theories unrealitically possible. For instance, Mofo A, has complete dominance over the resources of ore, thus makes him a monopoly, with the power of monopoly, he can increase the price to a point where he acheive the highest profit, where most times, price is determined by above marginal cost = marginal revenue (price not according to everybody affordability). Now you say that people can choose not to buy, but it makes the economy less efficient, no? Ore is an essential commodity, and to have a monopoly over it spell only negative effects towards the poorer people.
And the issue of tolls, it is inefficient no? When people end up walking instead of driving to their destination? How bad was it when the road was equally owned by everyone? And again, that's only the surface of it, it shows what happens when a country is held dominance over laissez faire, letting business do whatever they want, people pave roads everywhere, setting stalls directly in front of your homes, burning garbage behind your garden, polluting the river and killing the environment (not that its not happening now, but the lack of regulation will undoubtly increase this irresponsibilities). With all of in self interest, you can imagine how a city would look like...A VERY VERY DISORGANIZED CITY, roads will end up being paved to a same destination 10 times twice, buildings are located so far apart its inefficient, and buildings are constructed so shabily will sore your eyes.
For more unscrupulous people, they might even charge you for walking over their land! Especially if that land is located strategically.
I can give more reasons to rebutt anarchy, but I certainly do hope it has shed light on what is the role of government is. And they role is not a petty one, I might add. Hit me back with more creative solutions...
Moral standards? Keep to yourself. Thats the point of self-ownership. You don't need a set of laws for morality. You wouldn't want to be enslaved. You wouldn't want to be harmed.
and 006, I'll assume you live in the USA, since you did not specify. I am grateful for living in the US, and I am grateful for the freedom I have. True, no one forces me to think a way i don't want to, but I am also limited in what I can do. The US also imposes on other people, supposedly "making the world safe for democracy." Defending the country is one thing, but invading other countries is completely different. Also, some people are not allowed to make their own choices. Gay marriage for example. Why limit what you can do? We can achieve a greater level of freedom. We wouldn't be throwing away all that we have achieved. Look here:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I do believe I am pursuing liberty and hapiness. Thomas Paine, who probably had the most influence on the principles our country was founded, even said that government was "evil, even at its best."
And no, if another country tried an invasion, I think the people would be more willing to aid in the defense of their liberty. Imagine someone tryign to invade a society in which every person has the freedom to own as much weaponry as they want. It is estimated that there is almost 300 million people in the United States right now (cia.gov). Now if everyone of these people had a gun, and wanted to protect their freedom from an imposing government, whats to stop them from fighting back?
The only thing that would drive a country to invade an anarchical society would be a greed for more land. There would be no holy wars against it, for everyone would be sovereign. And who would surrender this society over to an invading country? There is no leading figure to negotiate surrender.
Just so you know, money evolutes FROM gold. The concept of money exist the same time as bank does, where gold owners deposit their gold in 3rd party vaults and in return, gets a receipt for the gold. As time goes by, people found it troublesome to get gold out of their safehouses and end up using receipts as a medium for exchange - to exchange ownership of the gold in the vaults :D Eventually = receipts becomes money
Yes I am aware of that. People would be able to choose whatever medium of exchange they want. Gold, bread, or paper money if they so choose.
Barter, is trade in its most primitive and inefficient way. So undoubtly, this is already a weak point in Anarchy.
It doesn't have to necessarily be a barter system. People may choose to use the barter system, but they are not limited to it.
I apologize for being vague in respect of market failure, but thats precisely it, not everybody has the same abilities as the person to the next, the assumption of people being rational beings, equal opportunities and being as capable make your theories unrealitically possible. For instance, Mofo A, has complete dominance over the resources of ore, thus makes him a monopoly, with the power of monopoly, he can increase the price to a point where he acheive the highest profit, where most times, price is determined by above marginal cost = marginal revenue (price not according to everybody affordability). Now you say that people can choose not to buy, but it makes the economy less efficient, no? Ore is an essential commodity, and to have a monopoly over it spell only negative effects towards the poorer people.
I'm gonna think about this one :P
And the issue of tolls, it is inefficient no? When people end up walking instead of driving to their destination? How bad was it when the road was equally owned by everyone? And again, that's only the surface of it, it shows what happens when a country is held dominance over laissez faire, letting business do whatever they want, people pave roads everywhere, setting stalls directly in front of your homes, burning garbage behind your garden, polluting the river and killing the environment (not that its not happening now, but the lack of regulation will undoubtly increase this irresponsibilities). With all of in self interest, you can imagine how a city would look like...A VERY VERY DISORGANIZED CITY, roads will end up being paved to a same destination 10 times twice, buildings are located so far apart its inefficient, and buildings are constructed so shabily will sore your eyes.
In the US, we are already supposed to be paying for "public" roads. It would probably benefit us more if there were tolls. And why would you pollute your own land? Is that in your best interest?
For more unscrupulous people, they might even charge you for walking over their land! Especially if that land is located strategically.
And they can do so! But what is it that drives us to hold a door open for someone? Or offer them a light for their cigarrette? Government doesn't make us do that. Why would it be any different without a government?
Sorry for hte double post, but it was easier :P AND I AM A MOD WITH POWER OVER YOU BWUAHAHAHA
kjrav
07-26-2006, 10:03 PM
you shoyuldn't abuse your mod power
V.VELDANEN
07-26-2006, 10:39 PM
Just so you know, money evolutes FROM gold. The concept of money exist the same time as bank does, where gold owners deposit their gold in 3rd party vaults and in return, gets a receipt for the gold. As time goes by, people found it troublesome to get gold out of their safehouses and end up using receipts as a medium for exchange - to exchange ownership of the gold in the vaults :D Eventually = receipts becomes money
Yes I am aware of that. People would be able to choose whatever medium of exchange they want. Gold, bread, or paper money if they so choose.
Well, eventually, people would want to demand currencies of the same value, which all brings back to money. And from there on, certain organization will take the role of accounting for currencies...therefore, people will live under A SYSTEM. Unless you can find a way around barter and an alternative medium of exchange, money should be the preferable choice in the long run. The use of paper money, which is worthless in its material value, requires some sort of recognition body for the majority to accept. Thus...living under a certain regulation and law...
It doesn't have to necessarily be a barter system. People may choose to use the barter system, but they are not limited to it.
More concrete solutions for huge amount of transactions (in billions) plz...:D. Poeple, as it is, have already operate in the grey economy for transactions of lesser value.
In the US, we are already supposed to be paying for "public" roads. It would probably benefit us more if there were tolls. And why would you pollute your own land? Is that in your best interest?
Yes, but through governments, everybody is free to use ALL roads that are made available THROUGHOUT the country, shared and paid for by every of your countrymen, you partly OWN the road. Though privatization, you have to pay evertime you use that 5km stretch of road. You would have to think twice before paying right? Where's the freedom there?
On pollution, there are illiterate idiots who doesn't think twice before burning their garbage open air.
And they can do so! But what is it that drives us to hold a door open for someone? Or offer them a light for their cigarrette? Government doesn't make us do that. Why would it be any different without a government?
Manners and courtesy are yours completely, it can deteriorate as well as improve. But in a society where individuals breathe and live its own, I don't see how courtesy can thrive on individualism. If there are signs of courtesy, then it shows people WANT to live together as a society, and wish to work under the same norm and behaviours.
Sorry for hte double post, but it was easier :P AND I AM A MOD WITH POWER OVER YOU BWUAHAHAHA
Cute...
Government, in its simple and purest form, think of a small community with a mayor, is designed to represent the people under one flag. It serves abd makes the society function better and more efficient like the gears and cogs in a well-oiled machine.
The US government, sadly, is an example of a system gone quite wrong.
Well, eventually, people would want to demand currencies of the same value, which all brings back to money. And from there on, certain organization will take the role of accounting for currencies...therefore, people will live under A SYSTEM. Unless you can find a way around barter and an alternative medium of exchange, money should be the preferable choice in the long run. The use of paper money, which is worthless in its material value, requires some sort of recognition body for the majority to accept. Thus...living under a certain regulation and law...
More concrete solutions for huge amount of transactions (in billions) plz...:D. Poeple, as it is, have already operate in the grey economy for transactions of lesser value.
http://e-gold.com/ ??
Yes, but through governments, everybody is free to use ALL roads that are made available THROUGHOUT the country, shared and paid for by every of your countrymen, you partly OWN the road. Though privatization, you have to pay evertime you use that 5km stretch of road. You would have to think twice before paying right? Where's the freedom there?
On pollution, there are illiterate idiots who doesn't think twice before burning their garbage open air.
Well not ALL roads are "free" to use without pay, but many yes. But it is ridiculous to think you own the road, or any other "public" property areas. Saying EVERYONE partly owns the road is decietful. NO ONE owns the road (besides the government). They are the same thing. I cannot freely decorate my road. I still think you are more free with the tolls. You have the choice to pay for the road or not, whereas the government makes you pay taxes (which hardly goes towards the roads anyway, but wars we don't need to fight and such).
And yes, there are those idiots. But how is that a factor in whether anarchy or government should exist? Air pollution exists anyway. Government won't stop it. Anarchy won't stop it. I do not claim anarchy is the solution to ALL problems, but it is a better solution than government imo.
Manners and courtesy are yours completely, it can deteriorate as well as improve. But in a society where individuals breathe and live its own, I don't see how courtesy can thrive on individualism. If there are signs of courtesy, then it shows people WANT to live together as a society, and wish to work under the same norm and behaviours.
I don't see how an anarchical society would cause people to stop wanting to live together.
Cute...
Thanks
Government, in its simple and purest form, think of a small community with a mayor, is designed to represent the people under one flag. It serves abd makes the society function better and more efficient like the gears and cogs in a well-oiled machine.
The US government, sadly, is an example of a system gone quite wrong.
Has there ever been a governed society that has NOT gone wrong?
kjrav
07-27-2006, 02:05 AM
Has there ever been an Anarchal society that did not become a goverment?
So far, yes. Look at some of the aboriginal peoples of Africa for example.
kjrav
07-27-2006, 02:15 AM
As far as I know they have a very fluid
hierarchy.Fluid,but a Hiarchy none the less.
Perhaps, but perhaps not all. That was a poor example on my part, a cheap shot perhaps. I am too ignorant of the subject to say for certain, but I would not deny the possibility. There have been successful anarchal societies in the past, but as you say, they have been taken over by governments. In Spain during WW1, and in Russia, only they were more communistic in their ways. And there were some capitalistic anarchal societies in iceland. But I know of no anarchal societies based on the principles I express. So perhaps it could be done
kjrav
07-27-2006, 02:49 AM
I have nothing against Anarchy I just think that human morality is too low and would bring nothing but chaos.I've seen to many occasions where when rules where removed society broke down.In an idealistic scociety where everyone was perfect mabey,but we live in no such scociety.
Again, I said I believe it is ideal, but humanity, as it is now, does not make it practical atm. I want to discuss how it would be ideal, given that every man was a rational thinker.
kjrav
07-27-2006, 03:03 AM
I believe we will never have a completly idel scociety but if such a situation arose I guess it would be okay but in an Ideal society so would any goverment or lifestyle.
Haha, I guess if everyone was a rational thinker, it wouldn't matter what kind of government, or lack thereof, we had, would it? well, crap...whats there to argue?
V.VELDANEN
07-27-2006, 03:40 AM
Its interesting to discuss a reborned society, how would an alien nation organize themselves I wonder...
But a society that is advanced as our demands more than just rational thinking on everyone's part, we need a hierachy and leaders to guide the economy on a macro scale.
And ultimately anarchy isn't the way. The lack of intervention of a governing body will increase the gap of the poor and the rich. No one will monitor the rich, monopolistic corporation, regulation of price ceilings and the poor/illiterate will continue working as labours that will forever be trapped in a cycle of poverty.
Which is in fact sadly, the case in most countries, it won't be easy to solve but I would rather bet my money on a decent governmental body guided by laws and regulation and philantropical policies that aims to develop the entire nations economy -> raising opportunities -> increase standard of living, rather than relying on individuals, who naively thinks the real world's problems can be solve if they were given freedom from governments?
Be rational and get rich and prosperous? Freedom of action can feed the poor?
How is anarchy going to address the problems of hard core poors in Brazil where only 7% of the soil is erable? How is anarchy going to solve the problems of lack of cheap, free and effective healthcare in Third World countries that is causing 12.2 million children from dying before they hit the age of 5? How is anarchy going to convince doctors in India (which 80% practice in urban areas where 20% resides) to spread their expertise to the poorer parts of the country?
If the world could be better by living and be driven by individuals, they all should be awarded with the nobel prize.
This e-gold thing is interesting btw...let me read up. Tnx for d link...I'll come back with its implications.
EDIT: On pollution, at least the government is doing its bid to designate dumping areas and asserting pollution tax on corporations. They have laws and regulation too to protect the environment, it certainly is better to regulate it and have a percentage of them be fearful of the law than to have none at all. And on roads, why would you want to decorate your roads?Do you even bother, honestly? Tolls are a pain, and i'm sure most people will agree with that, I wouldn't want spend an additional dollar for the day other than the fuel I'm paid for.
kjrav
07-27-2006, 03:56 AM
While what you say is true the goverment as we have it now CREATES a gap inthe rich and poor.Goverment is just as bad as anarchy in some ways.it's all in how you veiw life and carry yourself.
Well dammit V. I donno yet :P I suppose rational thinking does not necessarily mean its the right thinking, eh? Perhaps Mr. Paine was right in saying that government was a necessary evil...
What would you propose then, V, for these governments that have gone wrong?
(if this turns out ot be a discussion of fixing government adn what not, i'll change the title and such.)
V.VELDANEN
07-27-2006, 04:17 AM
Well honestly, if I had the answer I'd already won the nobel prize lol...I just don't think any model now is effective enough to solve most of the world's problems.
A recent new branch in economics is being studied now atm that's called development economics. While it doesn't answer the issue of personal freedom, it does point out the problems that can be worked on.
I haven't given alot of thoughts to 'remedying' the government...its an interesting discussion?
What about the government that ticks you off?
For me its definately politicians who are overly engrossed in politics, they are usually very risk-aversed and tend to sugar-coat their words just to win the people's minds. Promises are made same thing over and rarely take any initiative to properly plan things out. They too, make dumb decisions and aren't business-minded enough.
Corruption is another factor in third-world countries.
Well, I didn't think you knew the "truth," I was just wondering if you had any thoughts about it :P
I also am ticked off at over-engrossed politicians. But also, I don't like how many try to ban gay marriage, abortion, and other things that should be OUR CHOICE. (Partly a reason i was open to anarchy). Also, in the US, i don't believe that the people really have much of a choice in presidencies. There are really only two choices: Democrat and Republican, and I don't think they are very different from each other. I am also ticked off that the US government wages offensive wars, and the people don't have a direct say in those affairs (unless i am severely missing something). The list can go on..but lets limit how much we discuss at once :P
I am mostly limited to opinions on the US government, until I learn more about other countries' governments, but yes, the corruption in other governments, especially in Africa, that limits growth and prosperity in those countries
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.