How to fix our political, economic and education system

Cardinal.jpg · Post by **Cardinal.jpg** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 10:10 am

But wouldn´t it be grand. Nothing to worry about except the bell.

BrahRizor · Post by **BrahRizor** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:51 pm

Hmmm lemme rephrase my view on anarchy as a gov't, that there is no Central government, that its like pockets of groups completely independant, that there are so many seperate groups and yet remains such an open area where no laws are maintained that you are free to move off and start anew if u feel the current area to be wrong.

kthulhu · Post by **kthulhu** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 5:27 pm

Anarchy sounds well and good in theory, but in reality, you know it'd be like "The Road Warrior" or Somalia. People like me would probably be blitzkrieging those who we dislike or have what we need, within a week.

Yes, I can admit I'd be a raider in an anarchic society, killing and pillaging (but not rape, 'cuz that's bad).

Evil Urchin · Post by **Evil Urchin** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:41 pm

Hell, that sounds like fun, as long as you have the skills to survive. But I digress. I mentioned anarchy there simply for the purposes of hyperbole, since i hardly think putting the Liberterians in power would solve much, and would probably just lead to more problems. So, who should be in power? Well, hell, if I knew that I would have acted a while ago, but I don't, and I doubt anybody here or anywhere else does. Darnit Neitszche, where's the ubermensch when ya need him? There are hordes of people just waiting to go under here!

Lyrs · Post by **Lyrs** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:49 pm

i still say using a computer-run government is the best, and most cost effective plan

madmallard · Post by **madmallard** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 8:03 pm

confederacy wont work these days.

I still say go with the fair tax and start shrinking the government.

BrahRizor · Post by **BrahRizor** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 8:22 pm

Lyrs wrote:i still say using a computer-run government is the best, and most cost effective plan

Mmmmmm Terminator system....Skynet.....or better yet HAL 9000 from space odyssey

TheRealNeoHentaiMaster · Post by **TheRealNeoHentaiMaster** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 8:55 pm

The thing about anarchy thats actually really ironic is that where ever it exist, it will eventually decend(accend?) back into order. If it is indeed a good system (which I personally dont think it is) it is self defeating.

Evil Urchin · Post by **Evil Urchin** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 10:16 pm

In the case of anarchy, I'd say it would decend, simply because the government that usually follows anarchy is usually feudal, or warlord, or other such systems, which I happen to think are far worse then anarchy, what with all of the senseless bloodshed and constant border struggles. Not that anarchy doesn't have senseless bloodshed, but at least there you are fighting for yourself, as opposed to some wannabe king who doesn't give a crap about whether you live or die. Note that I am not endorsing anarchy, I'm just saying there are worse things.

danielwang · Post by **danielwang** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 10:22 pm

kthulhu wrote:Anarchy sounds well and good in theory, but in reality, you know it'd be like "The Road Warrior" or Somalia. People like me would probably be blitzkrieging those who we dislike or have what we need, within a week.

Yes, I can admit I'd be a raider in an anarchic society, killing and pillaging (but not rape, 'cuz that's bad).

Slight problem with anarchy: you can't synergestically leverage resources, including human and capital.

Sure, a lot of Americans didn't support Bush going to war. I sure didn't. But how did we win? In a more liberal or anarchial system, he'd only have the support of the people who supported him. Sounds like an oxymoron, no? In The States, even if you don't support his views, you still pay taxes to buy those missiles.

I'm all for privatizing roads, but we don't want too little or too MUCH infrastructure. Non-google search for "Baby Bells" if you want to know what I mean by that.

We need a way to actually make people participate in the system without using legislation to make them do it. But how are we going to support a war on such a government system? Here's how:

Sell war bonds, except just like any other security.
Let's say I invest 100,00 Euro for this principle:
If the lose, we lose ALL the money.
If we win, we get paid back whatever oil we get.

There's a major problem with this though. Let's enter Wang Daniel's theory of society-oriented purpose/intent...
We have several scenarios as a person to "intend" to have certain actions. This is a collection of pros and cons that affect each of our own personal goals and beliefs:

As a pure consumer, we make decisions based on our belief and goal in capital: we try to get money. We make decisions that save us money and get us more of it. This is one way to run the government.

As an altruistic citizen, you are more concerned with the benefits of the group (as opposed to yourself) socially. This may include captial resoure gain, but may not: as an altruistic citizen, we make decisions based on the advancement of society. Supporting certain projects may not have a capital payoff, but may have positive intangible results.

With a 100% Captialist (Structure-Only Government) system, every time a researcher wanted to conduct a trial on a new cancer treatment, he'd have to raise capital and eventually license the rights to the treatment and pay it back. This has ethical and moral weight s attached to it.

With a 100% Communist (Community-Directive Government) system, which is NOT that bad at all, the researcher would prove the worthiness of the project, and satisfying the requirements of the scientific community, he would recieve a grant. The drug/treatment would be Open Source.

It is necessary, for practical reasons, to obtain a balance between those two extremes. On one hand, capitalist-driven society, on the other hand, communism.

My proposed system would create that balance, However, I DO admit that it is FLAWED. The States' system of continually developing governemtn theoretically shouldnt work, and theoretically should be the superior system if it did. Unfortunately, it's too slow.

These ideas are not practical, but at least they're theory.
I Am Not A Political Science Major, And Therefore I Have An Excuse To Be Wrong.