Political Crossfire Forums

[Mr 1 Percent]

Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote:
The best form of government is none. That's been tried, in places like Somalia. The results are always grossly inferior to the results in places with good governments. I'm not sure how you prevent yourself from knowing such facts...

Here is a fact for you. Last century governments were responsible for the deaths of 170 million people. Yeah, and that's about 1/10 of the number that would have died if there had been no governments. Do you know what happened in Western Europe when Roman government disappeared in the 5th C? The population declined by 30%. And it wasn't because of contraception.

Quote: Why should we only look at "good" governments? That is a biased sample. I didn't say we should look only at good governments. We need to look at the bad ones too, to learn from their mistakes. As for being a "biased sample," that's kinda the idea. If you want to know how to eat a healthy diet, you look at healthy people. You don't look at all the people who make themselves fat and sick by eating junk food and decide on that account to opt for anorexia.

To continue the culinary metaphor, let the baby tiger have it's bottle if you must, but you are responsible for what it turns into.

[greeneye]

If the objective of a government is to allow freedom and liberty to be exercised by the populace, I believe, some type of democratic republic is currently the only model of government, at least in modern times, that will allow freedom and liberty to survive. If "freedom" is not the objective or goal, than there are certainly other choices of governing models to choose from as can be seen around the world.

The U.S. Founding Father's main objective in establishing this democratic republic (USA) was to establish a new government that would allow these two fundamental principles: freedom and liberty to flourish. And one of the main reasons freedom and liberty have worked in America for over 200 years is not only because the U.S. Constitution is a great document that sets forth the rule of law, but also because the people here, and all the immigrants that have come and continue to come are able to live in freedom and abide by the rule of law. Sometimes, I think we take this for granted, the ability for our population to live in a free country under the rule of law.

Since the American Revolution, the idea of a democracy and some type of representative government slowly spread throughout the centuries to other parts of the world -- a world that was basically under monarchs and kings for ages. Even though there's always been small groups of "freedom fighters" throughout the centuries, the majority of people were quite comfortable with kings and monarchs. And sometimes there were good kings and sometimes there were really bad kings. But freedom and liberty was never truly experienced by a large population until the American Revolution and the birth of a democratic republic.

America was born because people (lots of people) were ready to be Free. If the people hadn't been ready and truly desired it, I don't think this democratic republic would have been born. In other words, man evolved from the ages of monarchy. Thus the fires of freedom that were started (through much bloodshed and sacrifice) in America spread around the world many times over. And today around the world we see freedom and liberty being exercised under different types of democratic government models depending on cultures and traditions.

America really set forth an example that freedom can work under a governing model that supports its basic principles (in our case it was a democratic republic). And that's why people from all over the world have come and continue to come here -- because of the opportunity to live in freedom.

So the whole point of my little history 101 dissertation is to say that people who live in countries today under the rule of monarchs or kings or totalitarian regimes really yearn to be free. And we know this because we can hear and listen to them through all the media outlets we have today.

So if freedom and liberty are the objective of a government, some type of democracy with checks and balances (hopefully) will support them.

Then, of course, we know it does indeed take some time for freedom to settle in. We (Americans) are still learning that freedom does come with responsibility-- despite the fact that not everyone may like or agree on what those responsibilities are.

[Mr 1 Percent]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That is some of the best satire I have seen on these boards.

[Roy L]

Mr 1 Percent wrote:
To continue the culinary metaphor, let the baby tiger have it's bottle if you must, but you are responsible for what it turns into. Tigers are all pretty much alike. Governments are not. To claim they are is just stupid.

[RueTheDay]

The primary benefit of democracy is that it provides a mechanism for the orderly and bloodless removal of leaders when they are doing a poor job of governing.

[Mr 1 Percent]

Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote:
To continue the culinary metaphor, let the baby tiger have it's bottle if you must, but you are responsible for what it turns into. Tigers are all pretty much alike. Governments are not. To claim they are is just stupid.
Show me any (initially good) government in history that did not end up an uncontrolable predator.

[RueTheDay]

Mr 1 Percent wrote: Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote:
To continue the culinary metaphor, let the baby tiger have it's bottle if you must, but you are responsible for what it turns into. Tigers are all pretty much alike. Governments are not. To claim they are is just stupid.
Show me any (initially good) government in history that did not end up an uncontrolable predator.

Show me an anarchist utopia that did not eventually end up with either a government or with quasi-governmental warlords pillaging it.

[Mr 1 Percent]

RueTheDay wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: To continue the culinary metaphor, let the baby tiger have it's bottle if you must, but you are responsible for what it turns into. Tigers are all pretty much alike. Governments are not. To claim they are is just stupid.
Show me any (initially good) government in history that did not end up an uncontrolable predator.
Show me an anarchist utopia that did not eventually end up with either a government or with quasi-governmental warlords pillaging it.
All governments are necessarily prone to expansion. It is their nature due to the perverse incentives inherent in government power.
Anarchies are not neccessarily prone to defeat. The most powerful government army in history has recently been given a very difficult time by people without a government, (and remember that their previous dictator had disarmed them).

[RueTheDay]

Mr 1 Percent wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: To continue the culinary metaphor, let the baby tiger have it's bottle if you must, but you are responsible for what it turns into. Tigers are all pretty much alike. Governments are not. To claim they are is just stupid.
Show me any (initially good) government in history that did not end up an uncontrolable predator.
Show me an anarchist utopia that did not eventually end up with either a government or with quasi-governmental warlords pillaging it.
All governments are necessarily prone to expansion. It is their nature due to the perverse incentives inherent in government power.
Anarchies are not neccessarily prone to defeat. The most powerful government army in history has recently been given a very difficult time by people without a government, (and remember that their previous dictator had disarmed them).

I aksed for an example of a government-less society that survived for a significant period of time.

[Mr 1 Percent]

RueTheDay wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: To continue the culinary metaphor, let the baby tiger have it's bottle if you must, but you are responsible for what it turns into. Tigers are all pretty much alike. Governments are not. To claim they are is just stupid.
Show me any (initially good) government in history that did not end up an uncontrolable predator.
Show me an anarchist utopia that did not eventually end up with either a government or with quasi-governmental warlords pillaging it.
All governments are necessarily prone to expansion. It is their nature due to the perverse incentives inherent in government power.
Anarchies are not neccessarily prone to defeat. The most powerful government army in history has recently been given a very difficult time by people without a government, (and remember that their previous dictator had disarmed them).

I aksed for an example of a government-less society that survived for a significant period of time.
Medieval Iceland for 290 years
http://www.simplyanarchy.com/studies.htm

[RueTheDay]

Mr 1 Percent wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: To continue the culinary metaphor, let the baby tiger have it's bottle if you must, but you are responsible for what it turns into. Tigers are all pretty much alike. Governments are not. To claim they are is just stupid.
Show me any (initially good) government in history that did not end up an uncontrolable predator.
Show me an anarchist utopia that did not eventually end up with either a government or with quasi-governmental warlords pillaging it.
All governments are necessarily prone to expansion. It is their nature due to the perverse incentives inherent in government power.
Anarchies are not neccessarily prone to defeat. The most powerful government army in history has recently been given a very difficult time by people without a government, (and remember that their previous dictator had disarmed them).

I aksed for an example of a government-less society that survived for a significant period of time.
Medieval Iceland for 290 years
http://www.simplyanarchy.com/studies.htm

Medieval Iceland was not an example of anarcho-capitalism or any other form of anarchy. It was a set of communes, each consisting of a group of family farmers. Membership in a given commune was not voluntary, it was required, as was a contribution of funds for the needs of the commune. Additionally, there was no free market, as prices were set by communal committees. Ultimately, power struggles caused the whole thing fell apart and the leaders of the communes approached the king of Norway to have him take over Iceland.

[EugenicHegemony]

RueTheDay wrote: The primary benefit of democracy is that it provides a mechanism for the orderly and bloodless removal of leaders when they are doing a poor job of governing.

Yeah, it's worked wonders so far.

[greeneye]

Mr 1 Percent wrote: Anarchies are not neccessarily prone to defeat.

Ah .. I see, anarchy as a possible alternative to a democracy? I remember reading a bit about anarchy in a college paper. Ok, let's see .... the positive side of its meaning since I hope you don't advocate the negative side of its meaning:

"a political theory that holds all government authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocates a society based on voluntary cooperation of individuals and groups." Britannica-Webster

When I think of a society based upon the principle of the individual being self-ruled, I think of a Utopia -- not anarchy.

I'm not sure the U.S. is ready for that yet, though it's an interesting idea -- Utopian government - .

I believe, there are some small 'self-ruled' societies now in Spain who have put Anarchism into action.

Thomas More's Utopia is an interesting read along these lines.

Our democracy in the U.S. is not perfect. Though it has lasted longer than any democracy in the last 2 centuries.... There are problems. But, personally, I believe they are worth fixing.

[Mr 1 Percent]

RueTheDay wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: To continue the culinary metaphor, let the baby tiger have it's bottle if you must, but you are responsible for what it turns into. Tigers are all pretty much alike. Governments are not. To claim they are is just stupid.
Show me any (initially good) government in history that did not end up an uncontrolable predator.
Show me an anarchist utopia that did not eventually end up with either a government or with quasi-governmental warlords pillaging it.
All governments are necessarily prone to expansion. It is their nature due to the perverse incentives inherent in government power.
Anarchies are not neccessarily prone to defeat. The most powerful government army in history has recently been given a very difficult time by people without a government, (and remember that their previous dictator had disarmed them).

I aksed for an example of a government-less society that survived for a significant period of time.
Medieval Iceland for 290 years
http://www.simplyanarchy.com/studies.htm

Medieval Iceland was not an example of anarcho-capitalism or any other form of anarchy. It was a set of communes, each consisting of a group of family farmers. Membership in a given commune was not voluntary, it was required, as was a contribution of funds for the needs of the commune. Additionally, there was no free market, as prices were set by communal committees. Ultimately, power struggles caused the whole thing fell apart and the leaders of the communes approached the king of Norway to have him take over Iceland.
Then can you provide a case of "genuine" anarchy that fell apart after a short time?

[Mr 1 Percent]

greeneye wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: Anarchies are not neccessarily prone to defeat.

Ah .. I see, anarchy as a possible alternative to a democracy? I remember reading a bit about anarchy in a college paper. Ok, let's see .... the positive side of its meaning since I hope you don't advocate the negative side of its meaning:

"a political theory that holds all government authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocates a society based on voluntary cooperation of individuals and groups." Britannica-Webster

When I think of a society based upon the principle of the individual being self-ruled, I think of a Utopia -- not anarchy.
People who believe the state can be kept benevolent, regardless of the massive amount of evidence to the contrary, are the true utopians. Of the hundreds of states that have existed, can you provide a single example of one that was kept benevolent?

Quote:
I'm not sure the U.S. is ready for that yet, though it's an interesting idea -- Utopian government - .
So true, so true... :wink:

Quote: Our democracy in the U.S. is not perfect. It's has lasted longer than any democracy in the last 2 centuries.... There are problems. But, personally, I believe they are worth fixing.
Spoken like a true Utopian. You're letting your preconceived notion of the benevolence of the state cloud your view of the reality of it.
The question you need to ask yourself is can it be fixed?

[RueTheDay]

Mr 1 Percent wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: To continue the culinary metaphor, let the baby tiger have it's bottle if you must, but you are responsible for what it turns into. Tigers are all pretty much alike. Governments are not. To claim they are is just stupid.
Show me any (initially good) government in history that did not end up an uncontrolable predator.
Show me an anarchist utopia that did not eventually end up with either a government or with quasi-governmental warlords pillaging it.
All governments are necessarily prone to expansion. It is their nature due to the perverse incentives inherent in government power.
Anarchies are not neccessarily prone to defeat. The most powerful government army in history has recently been given a very difficult time by people without a government, (and remember that their previous dictator had disarmed them).

I aksed for an example of a government-less society that survived for a significant period of time.
Medieval Iceland for 290 years
http://www.simplyanarchy.com/studies.htm

Medieval Iceland was not an example of anarcho-capitalism or any other form of anarchy. It was a set of communes, each consisting of a group of family farmers. Membership in a given commune was not voluntary, it was required, as was a contribution of funds for the needs of the commune. Additionally, there was no free market, as prices were set by communal committees. Ultimately, power struggles caused the whole thing fell apart and the leaders of the communes approached the king of Norway to have him take over Iceland.
Then can you provide a case of "genuine" anarchy that fell apart after a short time?

Afghanistan, immediately after the Soviet withdrawal had no government. It quickly descended into a morass of feuding warlords.

[EugenicHegemony]

RueTheDay wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: To continue the culinary metaphor, let the baby tiger have it's bottle if you must, but you are responsible for what it turns into. Tigers are all pretty much alike. Governments are not. To claim they are is just stupid.
Show me any (initially good) government in history that did not end up an uncontrolable predator.
Show me an anarchist utopia that did not eventually end up with either a government or with quasi-governmental warlords pillaging it.
All governments are necessarily prone to expansion. It is their nature due to the perverse incentives inherent in government power.
Anarchies are not neccessarily prone to defeat. The most powerful government army in history has recently been given a very difficult time by people without a government, (and remember that their previous dictator had disarmed them).

I aksed for an example of a government-less society that survived for a significant period of time.
Medieval Iceland for 290 years
http://www.simplyanarchy.com/studies.htm

Medieval Iceland was not an example of anarcho-capitalism or any other form of anarchy. It was a set of communes, each consisting of a group of family farmers. Membership in a given commune was not voluntary, it was required, as was a contribution of funds for the needs of the commune. Additionally, there was no free market, as prices were set by communal committees. Ultimately, power struggles caused the whole thing fell apart and the leaders of the communes approached the king of Norway to have him take over Iceland.
Then can you provide a case of "genuine" anarchy that fell apart after a short time?

Afghanistan, immediately after the Soviet withdrawal had no government. It quickly descended into a morass of feuding warlords.

You can thank the U.S. government for that and the build up of the Mujadeen. You can also thank them for the aiding of the Somali war lords. You think that a central government is something petty dysfunctional war lords give a damn about? War lord governments like the U.S. do.

[greeneye]

EugenicHegemony wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: To continue the culinary metaphor, let the baby tiger have it's bottle if you must, but you are responsible for what it turns into. Tigers are all pretty much alike. Governments are not. To claim they are is just stupid.
Show me any (initially good) government in history that did not end up an uncontrolable predator.
Show me an anarchist utopia that did not eventually end up with either a government or with quasi-governmental warlords pillaging it.
All governments are necessarily prone to expansion. It is their nature due to the perverse incentives inherent in government power.
Anarchies are not neccessarily prone to defeat. The most powerful government army in history has recently been given a very difficult time by people without a government, (and remember that their previous dictator had disarmed them).

I aksed for an example of a government-less society that survived for a significant period of time.
Medieval Iceland for 290 years
http://www.simplyanarchy.com/studies.htm

Medieval Iceland was not an example of anarcho-capitalism or any other form of anarchy. It was a set of communes, each consisting of a group of family farmers. Membership in a given commune was not voluntary, it was required, as was a contribution of funds for the needs of the commune. Additionally, there was no free market, as prices were set by communal committees. Ultimately, power struggles caused the whole thing fell apart and the leaders of the communes approached the king of Norway to have him take over Iceland.
Then can you provide a case of "genuine" anarchy that fell apart after a short time?

Afghanistan, immediately after the Soviet withdrawal had no government. It quickly descended into a morass of feuding warlords.

You can thank the U.S. government for that and the build up of the Mujadeen. You can also thank them for the aiding of the Somali war lords. You think that a central government is something petty dysfunctional war lords give a damn about? War lord governments like the U.S. do.

Amazing conclusion....

When the Soviets finally realized they could not win the Afghan war and they pulled out, anarchy followed because of the Soviet-installed Najibullah government. Mohammed Najibullah's overthrow in 1992 finally brought the anti-Soviet resistance groups--the mujahedin--to power. But there was still anarchy because the mujahedin started to fight each other in a brutal civil war that lasted years. The ongoing fighting (anarchy) was due to the fragmentation of power during the years of resistance between the mujahedin and the Soviet Union and the increased ethnic tensions.

Afganistan's September 2005 parlimentary elections were an important milestone marking the progress in the development of a stable democracy vs the anarchy they've had for years.

The very idea of an anarchy government (in the positive sense of the word - 'self rule') could never work in a state like Afghanistan where the people and different ethnic groups would not be able to take the responsibility of being self ruled.

[anselfir]

heh, of course disorganized anarchy will be ruled by might, but the complaint against democracy is that it is not just. Its decisions are made through circumstantial processes that are difficult to equilibrilize, seeing how the real power and the political power are one. The alternative to a democracy is not lawless anarchy, that's like saying the opposite of black is colorless. Some limited law keeping agency ruled by elites in a small jurisdiction makes for better balance of power.

[Roy L]

Mr 1 Percent wrote: Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote:
To continue the culinary metaphor, let the baby tiger have it's bottle if you must, but you are responsible for what it turns into. Tigers are all pretty much alike. Governments are not. To claim they are is just stupid.
Show me any (initially good) government in history that did not end up an uncontrolable predator. Iceland, Canada, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, the Bahamas, Switzerland, Eire and Costa Rica are all examples of countries with democratic governments that have shown no inclination to become uncontrolable predators at any time since they became democratic.