Forms of Government

[Benguin]

population is too big for a universally approved government. If ten people can't agree then millions will never agree. You can pick low hanging fruit to devalue any known governing system. This is just a part of being human I'm afraid so for me, I think the UK's current system is as good as it gets.

[Sampson]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, think we've touched on that ideal before - that collectivism naturally puts limitations on individuals because they believe that humans are driven by their base purposes to beat each other over the head if left to their own devices. Quite frankly, history is full of examples of this, but then there's plenty of examples of humans being decent under totally free will too, so your mileage may vary.

 

Regarding the second paragraph, I might posit that as long as humanity is alive, the opportunity for them to use free will exists - given the situation it might only be a slim opportunity but it will always exist - and so having a situation where the possibility of a "free life" (your definition of that may vary) may exist again is preferable to one where there is no chance at all, viz. extinction. So, from that point of view, I do believe survival to be a more important factor given certain situations, as all questions of individualism and all other moral concepts only apply when there are humans around to conceive and perceive them.

 

However, I do also acknowledge (and what you've said there has made me think on this one, and thank you for that) is that position only holds up as long as that possibility exists...so such a collectivist situation would have to be with the caveat that it wasn't going to be inevitably eternal.

That is true, but then are you not ultimately still just inevitability just creating a collectivist government for the purpose of brainwashing? Marxist theory has always been that a period of Socialism would follow Capitalism and eventually lead to the Communist utopia when people are ready for it - but is that not just straight forward brain washing? Forcing people to think or adapt to a certain form of government before they are ready for another? Is that not why North Korea is ultimately the way it is? Or why Mao had the "re-education camps"? Because Marxist theory no matter what it's intentions was ultimately flawed and not the way it was implemented?  How can you create an entirely publicly owned Economy for the sake of humanity eventually reaching a certain point for something else, without that ultimately being just forceful brainwashing when looked at in the plain light of day of what it actually is doing, rather than what it was theorised it was supposed to achieve. 

Another point I'd add to go back to something earlier in this thread is this idea that anarcho-syndicates are "anarchist" or "stateless" - they are not. All they do is exchange one large huge state like a nation state or a local government into lots of smaller states which exist on a smaller scale but are ultimately are still all-powerful public authorities which force individuals to make decisions based on the choices and ambitions of others rather than their own in exactly the same way Stalin's or Mao's or Saddam Hussein's or the Kim dynasty's states at a national level did/do, just at a smaller level. The only true stateless or anarchist society would be a 100% Private Economy. Socialism and Communism in all their forms always comes back to the all powerful State which forces its decisions on others and loses the individual in favour of the hivemind, any Economy driven by the Public Sector rather than the Private Sector ultimately always will. It's why I ultimately believe it is Socialist and Communist is flawed theory and it's the theory which is the problem with those forms of government, not the way they have been historically been put in practice or the greed or human beings or anything.

[lifted*fox]

THIS THREAD CURRENTLY HAS 0% PIGEON CONTENT.

 

Edited 2 March 2018 by lifted*fox

[Izzy]

I think we've got it about right in this country.

 

The one thing that makes the difference for me personally is the leadership qualities of the government and PM in particular. I'm not suggesting we go down the American route of electing a President but I want the strongest possible leadership team in place to deliver their policies and promises.

 

Crap leaders put me off politics and we deserve the very best for this country. I'd welcome some sort of additional vote around leadership because I think it's hugely significant. We need to trust and believe in the people who run our country and I'd like some sort of say in the matter.

[SpacedX]

 

[lifted*fox]

Just put pigeons in charge, imo.

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, Sampson said:

That is true, but then are you not ultimately still just inevitability just creating a collectivist government for the purpose of brainwashing? Marxist theory has always been that a period of Socialism would follow Capitalism and eventually lead to the Communist utopia when people are ready for it - but is that not just straight forward brain washing? Forcing people to think or adapt to a certain form of government before they are ready for another? Is that not why North Korea is ultimately the way it is? Or why Mao had the "re-education camps"? Because Marxist theory no matter what it's intentions was ultimately flawed and not the way it was implemented?  How can you create an entirely publicly owned Economy for the sake of humanity eventually reaching a certain point for something else, without that ultimately being just forceful brainwashing when looked at in the plain light of day of what it actually is doing, rather than what it was theorised it was supposed to achieve. 

Another point I'd add to go back to something earlier in this thread is this idea that anarcho-syndicates are "anarchist" or "stateless" - they are not. All they do is exchange one large huge state like a nation state or a local government into lots of smaller states which exist on a smaller scale but are ultimately are still all-powerful public authorities which force individuals to make decisions based on the choices and ambitions of others rather than their own in exactly the same way Stalin's or Mao's or Saddam Hussein's or the Kim dynasty's states at a national level did/do, just at a smaller level. The only true stateless or anarchist society would be a 100% Private Economy. Socialism and Communism in all their forms always comes back to the all powerful State which forces its decisions on others and loses the individual in favour of the hivemind, any Economy driven by the Public Sector rather than the Private Sector ultimately always will. It's why I ultimately believe it is Socialist and Communist is flawed theory and it's the theory which is the problem with those forms of government, not the way they have been historically been put in practice or the greed or human beings or anything.

I guess it depends on what your overall "objective" for humanity and the lives they lead are, and considering any flaws in an ideology as measured against that. It's pretty clear that our views on that point differ, and so our views on the flaws will differ too.

 

Let me put this another way: if the day came when humanity had to choose between collectivism (on a temporary basis) and extinction (and hypothetical as this is it is a choice that has been given to and chosen by many other complex species in the past)...which would you go for? If you'd begrudgingly go for the former, then we're likely on the same page. If you'd choose the latter...well, I'd admire your steadfast sticking to your principles, but I wouldn't be able to understand the idea of throwing away all those future lives, lives that could be led free through changing the system again, all that future potential...for the sake of what seems to be nothing more than principled pride.

[Sampson]

14 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I guess it depends on what your overall "objective" for humanity and the lives they lead are, and considering any flaws in an ideology as measured against that. It's pretty clear that our views on that point differ, and so our views on the flaws will differ too.

 

Let me put this another way: if the day came when humanity had to choose between collectivism (on a temporary basis) and extinction (and hypothetical as this is it is a choice that has been given to and chosen by many other complex species in the past)...which would you go for? If you'd begrudgingly go for the former, then we're likely on the same page. If you'd choose the latter...well, I'd admire your steadfast sticking to your principles, but I wouldn't be able to understand the idea of throwing away all those future lives, lives that could be led free through changing the system again, all that future potential...for the sake of what seems to be nothing more than principled pride.

Of course, WWII was a good example of where we had to switch to a much more publicly owned Economy which ruled people's lives much more heavily for the purposes of long-term survival on a smaller scale, but that's talking about a very short-term switch to defeat one singular thread and you're aiming towards a huge singular focus and everything in the Economy of society is aimed solely towards that singular focus where the people living through it could very much see the purpose and reasons behind it as tangible to their survival within their own or their children's life-span. If there was a singular and obvious danger of which it was impossible for humans to privately defeat - such as a meteor threat or alien invasion, then sure, for the short-term it would be worth it - but I definitely think there's a point where this no longer warrants the survival of the species - if it begins to go over hundreds of years and generation after generation where humans are living their whole lives in this state and if humans see no better future for them or their children anyway I believe the effectiveness of the publically owned Economy would generally deteriorate after a while anyway, as it always tends to in Socialist states after a generation or two following the original revolution/coup have gone by. I would definitely put liberty over survival in that instance. It's an interesting question about where exactly this line is drawn though and one I'm not sure I'd be able to answer without ever being in that particular situation (much like how it's impossible to really answer as to when a debilitating illness becomes so painful/undignified that you'd want to commit euthanasia until you're actually in that situation).

It's an interesting discussion either way.

[Dr The Singh]

Dictatorship is the best form, human beings are just too stupid and need to be controlled.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

Of course, WWII was a good example of where we had to switch to a much more publicly owned Economy which ruled people's lives much more heavily for the purposes of long-term survival on a smaller scale, but that's talking about a very short-term switch to defeat one singular thread and you're aiming towards a huge singular focus and everything in the Economy of society is aimed solely towards that singular focus where the people living through it could very much see the purpose and reasons behind it as tangible to their survival within their own or their children's life-span. If there was a singular and obvious danger of which it was impossible for humans to privately defeat - such as a meteor threat or alien invasion, then sure, for the short-term it would be worth it - but I definitely think there's a point where this no longer warrants the survival of the species - if it begins to go over hundreds of years and generation after generation where humans are living their whole lives in this state and if humans see no better future for them or their children anyway I believe the effectiveness of the publically owned Economy would generally deteriorate after a while anyway, as it always tends to in Socialist states after a generation or two following the original revolution/coup have gone by. I would definitely put liberty over survival in that instance. It's an interesting question about where exactly this line is drawn though and one I'm not sure I'd be able to answer without ever being in that particular situation (much like how it's impossible to really answer as to when a debilitating illness becomes so painful/undignified that you'd want to commit euthanasia until you're actually in that situation).

It's an interesting discussion either way.

Yeah, agree with that pretty much entirely.

 

Also, this has made me do some thinking and shift my position on the topic a little, too. Having looked at history and seen that humanity can switch to acting as one should the need become necessary and that gives me more hope than I had before that we can do it again to counter the global threats where needed in the future, bigger though they may be.

[Webbo]

The thing I don't like about proportional representation. In Germany there are 2 parties  at polar opposites politically, who have just had their worst electoral results since the war, propping each other in a coalition govt. How can that be right?

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, Webbo said:

The thing I don't like about proportional representation. In Germany there are 2 parties  at polar opposites politically, who have just had their worst electoral results since the war, propping each other in a coalition govt. How can that be right?

That sounds reasonable enough to me - it might mean that they temper each other in terms of ideology and come to better decisions as a result.

 

Is your issue with it the lack of executive power available in such a scenario? I'm not sure what about it you don't like.

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That sounds reasonable enough to me - it might mean that they temper each other in terms of ideology and come to better decisions as a result.

 

Is your issue with it the lack of executive power available in such a scenario? I'm not sure what about it you don't like.

Where's the opposition coming from? If the 2 main (ideologically opposite) parties can keep each other in power, despite both parties losing support, how is anything going to change?

 

 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Where's the opposition coming from? If the 2 main (ideologically opposite) parties can keep each other in power, despite both parties losing support, how is anything going to change?

 

 

This is operating on the assumption that political decisions have to be made or are best made due to an adversarial presence holding you to account for them.

 

I would posit that this isn't always the case and that such decisions can be made as a collaborative effort; indeed, it's possible that the driver for such will come from pressure groups within the two parties forming the coalition themselves.

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This is operating on the assumption that political decisions have to be made or are best made due to an adversarial presence holding you to account for them.

 

I would posit that this isn't always the case and that such decisions can be made as a collaborative effort; indeed, it's possible that the driver for such will come from pressure groups within the two parties forming the coalition themselves.

But the pressure groups within the parties can be ignored as you can rely on the other side to take your side. It's almost certain that at least 1, probably both of these parties will be in govt after the next election too. that's bad for democracy and I think the govt itself will inevitably stagnate.

[leicsmac]

Just now, Webbo said:

But the pressure groups within the parties can be ignored as you can rely on the other side to take your side. It's almost certain that at least 1, probably both of these parties will be in govt after the next election too. that's bad for democracy and I think the govt itself will inevitably stagnate.

That's possible, and I'm not saying that coalitions of that type are a good idea for a long time - too much like one-party rule. However, I think they suffice in a pinch or in certain situations (like war), so I don't think this really highlights that much of a failure of proportional representation IMO.

[Guest]

All these views saying how great democracy in the west is make me laugh a little.

 

The large majority of adults have no understanding of governance in general let alone each small area of life that is governed. They have little understanding of cause and effect in real terms and for this reason western democracy is simply a lie. If we have a democracy then it's a totalitarian democracy but I feel the democracy in the west is really a variant of oligarchies that we've seen in the west for over 2000 years (Rome, greece ...)

 

Maybe we should give one of meritocracy, timocracy, geniocracy a try. And a Theocracy in countries that believe in a God would seem the only suitable government.

 

Personally I think people are too stupid and too selfish for any government system to truly work.

[Rincewind]

There is only one form of government-corrupt.