Government.

[ZenitYerkes]

Originally Posted by rapunzel77

OOHH, very good and very important question. I don't know the answer to be honest. I don't believe we will ever have a completely fair system of government. That is probably unobtainable (no pun intended ). I like the idea of localism though. Dividing it up into smaller groups. Again, one looks at Ancient Rome. The empire got to large. It had to be divided. It became ungovernable. I certainly don't think we need more centralized government. That is scary and I know there is some people out there that think there needs to be a super centralized government for the world, etc. UGH. That would be awful.

What do you think? Is there a way for their to be localism now? Small communities getting together, working the land, growing their own crops, etc. It isn't just government that needs decentralizing. Corporations also need to be.

I like it too, it would mean a more active and direct participation of the people in their government and also make the rulers have little power, and then just work on their function.

However, localism presents the a small flaw: if you have little land you'll have little resources to give your people.

[rapunzel77]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

I like it too, it would mean a more active and direct participation of the people in their government and also make the rulers have little power, and then just work on their function.

However, localism presents the a small flaw: if you have little land you'll have little resources to give your people.

This is true. However, if we made the effort to plant our own gardens and become more self-sufficient that would help in the long run, I think. It is disturbing that so much of our lives is overly centralized .

Originally Posted by fkeua vrrtep

As far as I can say for myself , I'd rather live in a world of Anarchy , and be a free man in deciding my own fate and living my life the way I want to , than living in a "society" that forces me to do things I don't like , or be a number under the masses who is permanently being brainwashed by it's government and being exploited by it .

People tell you that Anarchy is "dangerous" , because they have been brainwashed into thinking like that , in the end we have come to existance through Anarchy , and guess what , we are still here , we just became slaves on our way at some point and got subjugated by few men who "rule" this planet and sold our freedom in exchange for a little security .

According to Hobbes, in the state of nature everyone has a right to anything. That includes the right to take life, and worse. If he's right then anarchy is even more impossible. Because his state of nature IS no society, it goes to show why your definition of anarchy is the worst possible system.

We need government or society in order to resolve disputes. Ask any of the great thinkers.

[fkeua vrrtep]

Originally Posted by Shatnerpossum

According to Hobbes, in the state of nature everyone has a right to anything. That includes the right to take life, and worse. If he's right then anarchy is even more impossible. Because his state of nature IS no society, it goes to show why your definition of anarchy is the worst possible system.

We need government or society in order to resolve disputes. Ask any of the great thinkers.

I don't need a government to solve disputes I have with somebody else , besides if there wouldn't be governments and states who fueled their peoples hearts with hate against each other , there wouldn't be no reason for any disputes .

So if Anarchy is the worst possible "system" (it actually is not a system , it's the abstinence of any kind of system, which includes systems that oppress and control their people) , what would your advice be referring to a system that is fair and offers freedom to it's people ? Or better said , is that even possible , now that we can't go back from the idea of having a government/state ?

Yes you do. If you take retribution, invariably the other will feel he has been wronged, and he will lash out in response. Thus war occurs. You need a common higher power to moderate disputes. Thats why we create government.

Its still a system. Everything is a system.

Stick with what Locke wrote about. Read his treatises.

[fkeua vrrtep]

Originally Posted by Shatnerpossum

Yes you do. If you take retribution, invariably the other will feel he has been wronged, and he will lash out in response. Thus war occurs. You need a common higher power to moderate disputes. Thats why we create government.

Its still a system. Everything is a system.

Stick with what Locke wrote about. Read his treatises.

Well , that's not quite right , how can Anarchy be a system if nobody controls it or takes profit out of it ? That just doesn't make any sense .

What you mentioned is one of the biggest problems mankind suffers under , we can't talk about stuff , if people disagree , they just tend to solve the problem with firearms , which is simply foolish to me , and pathetic aswell .

Plus a "common higher power" hasn't changed anything about our nature, about the way we act , there's still rape , murder etc. ,nothing has changed , we are still wild beasts , we just exchanged our pelt with a suit and act all "humane" , but as soon as trouble starts , or we feel threatened we show our real faces , and governments won't be able to change that , the problem lies deeper , and you won't solve it with rules and laws or any kind of government , you can only tame the beast if you show it some love and give it the opportunity of choice , governments and their rules just deteriorate the situation , how do you want to guarantee safety for something you can't control ?

You have to change peoples minds in order to let evilness disappear out of the human heart , and you won't achieve that with cutting peoples freedom .

1 : a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole <a number system>: as a (1) : a group of interacting bodies under the influence of related forces <a gravitational system> (2) : an assemblage of substances that is in or tends to equilibrium

If there's interaction, there's some sort of system even if it just de facto.

People use knives, rocks, fists, etc. Blaming the weapon is disingenuous.

Read Hobbe's Leviathan and Locke's Treatises.

[fkeua vrrtep]

Originally Posted by Shatnerpossum

1 : a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole <a number system>: as a (1) : a group of interacting bodies under the influence of related forces <a gravitational system> (2) : an assemblage of substances that is in or tends to equilibrium

If there's interaction, there's some sort of system even if it just de facto.

People use knives, rocks, fists, etc. Blaming the weapon is disingenuous.

Read Hobbe's Leviathan and Locke's Treatises.

with firearms I actually meant every possible weapon , which could be everything since everything can be used as a weapon .

And with system , I was relating to governments , you can't say that Anarchy is a sort of government , since nobody runs it , in fact the people run themselves , and of course people interact within it .

People running themselves is society.

[Human No More]

I think that in a large society, governments are necessary, unfortunately. That said, we give them FAR too much power, and they forget that they are only there because we chose them (just look at the current political situation here if you want an example of that, lol)
To work properly, governments need less power without having to actually find out the public's opinion, shorter terms and a more democratic system of election in many countries (e.g. the US or UK)