Political Crossfire Forums

[greeneye]

EugenicHegemony wrote: greeneye wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: greeneye wrote: in order for a 'self-rule society' to work, people would have to be completely responsible for their actions. Sounds like a noble idea to strive for, but I don't think Afghanistan is ready for it.

Are we not our own masters, and who decides who's ready for what and when?

Present your case as a possible solution to meet the country's current vacuum. (no government model but shopping for one)smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/

Quote: The reason i think its #1 is because its needed to support a large beuracracy

Why a "large bureaucracy"?

Gus wrote: What steps do you think should be taken to guide America toward your ideal, Eugenic?

greeneye asked me the same question about Afghanistan, and I gave him my ideas that I have been circulating the net with. Granted they're just ideas and I'd like other's to come up with their own wishful realistic ideas also.

I'm not sure if you got some posts mixed up, but I did not say: "The reason i think its #1 is because its needed to support a large beuracracy."

Nevertheless, thank you for presenting your case for this hypothetical scenario. There are some serious questions and concerns. I will attempt to post them in the next day or so. Perhaps others might have questions also based upon your outline.

[EugenicHegemony]

TheKrava wrote: To protect freedom you need to limit it!

Do you agree with me?

[url=http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=48505&highlight=]Those who would ever limit freedom for temporary (feigned) protection are the internal enemy, and must be dealt with for the jingoist treasonous traitors they are.
[/url]

[greeneye]

EugenicHegemony wrote: I look forward to your ideas for liberty, personal contributions, and critiques. Again they're just ideas, and nothing is ever set in stone.

Currently Afghanistan has a transitional government. Representatives from all the ethnic groups and tribes around the country formed a new constitution in January 2004. Since 99 percent of the population of Afghanistan is Muslim, they have voted unanimously to be an Islamic Republic. This obviously means that according to the new constitution, no law can be contrary to Islam.

With that on the table, (and the situation is still transitional) how and/or could a government model based upon 'no government - self rule' work?

http://www.classbrain.com/art_cr/publish/afghanistan_government1.shtml

[EugenicHegemony]

greeneye wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: I look forward to your ideas for liberty, personal contributions, and critiques. Again they're just ideas, and nothing is ever set in stone.

Currently Afghanistan has a transitional government. Representatives from all the ethnic groups and tribes around the country formed a new constitution in January 2004. Since 99 percent of the population of Afghanistan is Muslim, they have voted unanimously to be an Islamic Republic. This obviously means that according to the new constitution, no law can be contrary to Islam.

With that on the table, (and the situation is still transitional) how and/or could a government model based upon 'no government - self rule' work?

http://www.classbrain.com/art_cr/publish/afghanistan_government1.shtml

Decentralized governing. No countries law must ever be based off of any religion. It's an open door to limitless oppression. I already said: Get the U.S. government and any other nation the hell out of there, and let them figure it out themselves. Still keep a watchful eye.

I gave you my hypothetical and a statist religion was not part of that equation. I'm disappointed in you, and spent all that time putting that together here, only to see you ignore it, and contribute nothing.

greeneye wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: greeneye wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: greeneye wrote: in order for a 'self-rule society' to work, people would have to be completely responsible for their actions. Sounds like a noble idea to strive for, but I don't think Afghanistan is ready for it.

Are we not our own masters, and who decides who's ready for what and when?

Present your case as a possible solution to meet the country's current vacuum. (no government model but shopping for one)smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/

Quote: The reason i think its #1 is because its needed to support a large beuracracy

Why a "large bureaucracy"?

Gus wrote: What steps do you think should be taken to guide America toward your ideal, Eugenic?

greeneye asked me the same question about Afghanistan, and I gave him my ideas that I have been circulating the net with. Granted they're just ideas and I'd like other's to come up with their own wishful realistic ideas also.

I'm not sure if you got some posts mixed up, but I did not say: "The reason i think its #1 is because its needed to support a large beuracracy."

Nevertheless, thank you for presenting your case for this hypothetical scenario. There are some serious questions and concerns. I will attempt to post them in the next day or so. Perhaps others might have questions also based upon your outline.

I was quoting someone else, and you're welcome. I look forward to your ideas for liberty, personal contributions, and critiques. Again they're just ideas, and nothing is ever set in stone.

The less: Nationalization; control; coercion; limitation; regulation; intervention; and laws; therefore the more liberty/freedom you have. It will be a long hard road and if they want it they can have it. Any and all warlords must either be banished, imprisoned or killed. The U.S. government and any other country is to vacate the region.

I'd like to know (exactly) what's going wrong in Afghanistan, and why it's not working. Can something like what you see below, work in Afghanistan? If so, why, and if not, why not? How about some of your (own) ideas besides just critiquing mine? I'd like to know what your plan would be for Afghanistan, and places ready to overthrown their despotic governments. Hypothetical: You now have the omniscient ability to fix things, and go about in a realistic workable manner. What would be the first thing you would do, and so on?

Can Somalia succeed on their own?

The less: Nationalization, control, coercion, limitation, regulation, and laws; the more liberty/freedom you have. It will be a long hard road and if they want it they can have it. Any and all warlords must either be banished, imprisoned or killed. The U.S. government and any other country is to vacate the region.

Is it possible to aid the Afghani's in their time of need, and to help them reach their goals at a much faster and organized rate?

1)Gather those with the capital, honest intentions, and form a private force: (maybe several different one's, and not under the same management)

2)Infiltrate Afghanistan and eliminate any and all war lords. eg: banish, imprison, or kill: (Black Water could do it if they weren't up the U.S. government's ass)

3)Secure any and all Afghani natural resources: *including heroin as this most lucrative business's been stolen by the U.S. government* ( Secure it (all) for the Afghani's as it's their's. Make sure no outside states have access to any of it's resources)

4)Technology and Science must bee 100% free to do as they please.

5)Allow the Afghani citizenry to devise a mock Constitution constructed by the citizenry: Nothing real, and only an idea of what they think they might like. I feel, Jefferson's law of aggressing could be the main tenet. Anything beyond that isn't necessary, and onerous.

6)No state religion: All are to worship as they please.

7)No electoral college: ending district voting blocks and ending (If, they choose to have any type of voting at all .eg:One person one vote)

8 )No partisan parties, ergo, no controlled tribes conditioned, and manipulated: (No one is stopping anyone from doing this, I think it's just counterproductive to real individual cooperatism)

9)Install IRV or some derivative: (No plurality voting) Still any minority will be protected, and no one will have dominion over another. (Again, if they choose to have any voting system at all)

10)No compulsory public schooling: (They condition and breed future labour)

11)Install term limits: If there's a system of any sort set up.

(Congress in the U.S. has become a lifestyle which we as a working people make possible, nothing more; then that must end. As of now, congress has a 99% incumbency rate. They are royalty, and term limits will end that reign)

(Which reminds me. I got a great new open poll that could use some free marketeer assistance)

INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

12)Decentralize any and all governing/managing abilities: (If there are any)

13)No Supreme Courts: (They're: appointed in a dictatorial fashion, there till they die, and the last law of the land; therefore it's absurd. As of now the more capital you have the better chance of getting appeals and a never ending process ensues)

1-2 appeal limit with no more than a year between appeals. No Supreme Courts to ever dictate the outcome. A jury of your peers is all Afghani's need.

14)No nationalization of the Afghani economy: No more planned or command economies will manifest.

(Free unencumbered markets. Use any system you please: Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism. If you are a fascist/corporatist, then you're sh!t out of luck)

The U.S. government has forced a command economy on the workers of America, while giving themselves and their special interests a free anarchic market. Am I right or wrong?

15)No the Welfare State: (Enough said)

16)Legalize all drugs: (It will work as there's no Welfare state. If there was, all Afghani's would have to pay, and there'd be no end in site)

17)No lobbying: (They've become a closed society guilds with government for the elite, and this is everywhere central authority has taken control)

18)No governmental interference in the Somali economy:

19)No protectionism:

20)No subsidization:

21)Denationalize Globalization: (No more war for profit or opening of Business Markets at the citizenry's expense)

22)Abolish all Central Banks. (Ending the governmental monopoly on: prices, rents, wages, salaries, capital, inflation, deflation, interest rates, stock market just to name a few. That is our lifeblood and it's not capitalism; it's more like nationalized communism)

*I would like some ideas for a replacement of these*

23)No income tax: (It's a war tax. It was used for the Spanish American war, civil war, WWI just to name a few. One year prior to WWI. Does 1+1=2 for any of you)

24) No warfare state: National plebiscite for foreign war; unless an invading country/ is preparing to invade Afghani soil. eg: U.S./USSR :wink: UK/UN...et...with: tanks; battleships; planes; and infantry.

(Irregulars and guerrillas need to be taken with counter intelligence and world police; not exclusive to the U.S. and not their responsibility alone. Large military action is counterproductive to defeating terrorists of any kind, and always has been)

If this decentralized management system wants to use a CIA/FBI type, or any other murder crew, then have at it. It will more than likely be private anyway. Think multiple Black Water type systems.

If Afghani's want to kill enlisted kids (If there is a large military force) for personal corporatist profit; then they will need to ask the Afghani citizenry first.

Side note: I can't imagine a Military Industrial Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex in Afghanistan, without the U.S. government installing one first.

25)Open policy: A potential enemy will know every Afghani knows: what a potential enemy is planning; where they are; what they're doing; and where they're going; therefore a potential enemy looking to harm Afghanistan, has zero place to hide National Security is a lie.

TheKrava wrote: To protect freedom you need to limit it!

Do you agree with me?

[url=http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=48505&highlight=]Those who would ever limit freedom for temporary (feigned) protection are the internal enemy, and must be dealt with for the jingoist treasonous traitors they are.
[/url]

[greeneye]

EugenicHegemony wrote: I gave you my hypothetical and a statist religion was not part of that equation. I'm disappointed in you, and spent all that time putting that together here, only to see you ignore it, and contribute nothing.

, Eugenic it's OK... we'll figure this out....

The hypothetical situation I came up with was to get an idea from you of where you are coming from because it wasn't clear to me. So you gave me an outline of what your philosophy of a no-government self rule would look like. I see it on print (somewhat), but I was really trying to see how feasible it would be to adopt such a governing style in a real country today 2006.

Afghanistan is currently going through a transitional government and has literally had no government model for several years. So that's why I chose it. There's still many options open to the country -- I would think... it's transitional.

Your comment is that "religion was no part of that equation." Ok, I understand that (as least from the state level). Maybe Afghanistan then is not the best example for me to have chosen.

My motive for the exercise, at least for me, was to dialog with you to see how a "no government model" could or would work within the framework of a real country today. So, sure, I can say, ok, hypothetically, let's assume the ethnic groups of Afghanistan did not vote that the new government they adopt be an Islamic Republic (which I actually just learned about in researching the topic). Then we could discuss some of the various points in your outline.

However, again, Eugenic, my motive was/is to see, how feasible your governing philosophy would or could work for a real country. Obviously, a country adopting this type of government style would have to choose to agree to make some major changes in many areas of societal living conditions, hopefully without causing civil war.

And unless you have a "brand new country starting from scratch" with new people moving into a region where there is no cultural and/or traditions, no educational system, no set paradigms, etc., a no-government model would have to fit into some type of a existing cultural setting with any given number of challenges the country may be facing. Since an Islamic Republic (99 percent being Muslim) would most likely not be very willing to consider a "non religious" state, let's not use that example

Since, I still have a lots of freedom here in America, 8:) why don't I just create a new country.
Thus, I will give it some hypothetical cultural settings and parameters, peoples, challenges, etc. and bring in some arguments from your no-government model.

Inasmuch as this will not show me how a real country could or would adopt "a no-government" model, perhaps we'll learn something from the exercise. So let me think about this and I'll post something soon. There's really no winner or looser to this type of exercise, but perhaps a list of pros and cons that can be used to reflect upon the idea of a "no-government, self rule society."

[greeneye]

Couple of question before I complete my nation building effort Eugenic...

No protectionism: Are we talking about "Protectionism as in the economic policy of protecting a nation's manufacturing base from the effects of foreign competition"?

Legalize all drugs: Are we talking about what we consider to be illegal drugs in America also?

What is the method of creating laws to keep civil order in my new country? If the country is divided into different regions, can each region create and abide by it's own Constitution?

[Franklin]

The democratic republic does have problems such as inefficiency and tyranny of the majority. Not to say that these problems cannot be overcome with constitutional authority based upon principles of free expression and minority rights. A democratic government is ideal but the whole world isn't ready for a democratic government. A certain amount of industrial development is necessary for a democratic government because a democratic society cannot be based upon the vast inequalities of semi-colonial and semi-feudal societies.

[EugenicHegemony]

greeneye wrote: Couple of question before I complete my nation building effort Eugenic...

No protectionism: Are we talking about "Protectionism as in the economic policy of protecting a nation's manufacturing base from the effects of foreign competition"?

Legalize all drugs: Are we talking about what we consider to be illegal drugs in America also?



Quote: No protectionism: Are we talking about "Protectionism as in the economic policy of protecting a nation's manufacturing base from the effects of foreign competition"? Anything the government interferes with, and that includes tariff's.

Quote: Legalize all drugs: Are we talking about what we consider to be illegal drugs in America also? Yes

Quote: What is the method of creating laws to keep civil order in my new country? If the country is divided into different regions, can each region create and abide by it's own Constitution? Any method you choose. Each region can do as it pleases and is beholden to no one. Think of it like it is now. Certain states have certain laws that other's do not, and so forth.

[greeneye]

EugenicHegemony wrote: Any method you choose. Each region can do as it pleases and is beholden to no one. Think of it like it is now. Certain states have certain laws that other's do not, and so forth.

Ok, however, help me understand --- what is the 'cohesive element' that keeps my country a country? With no central government, if my country has 12 states, with their own Constitution and laws and natural resources, etc., what prevents or keeps some states from breaking away from the rest of the country if their population chooses to take that action? Or perhaps this is an option open to the states in the country ...?

Also, as each state develops its own Constitution, since there is no central government, I assume then, since there is no framework to draw from, (central document) -- they (the states) can create whatever type of governing structure they want.

Thus for the sake of our hypothetical argument, I will assume some states can choose to have a socialistic type of local government, where they unanimously vote to have their state constitution and laws adopt a welfare system, subsidized medicine, etc. and other states will choose other forms of local governance.

Can I assume the people in those states have the complete freedom to set up their local governance for their states based upon whatever set of governing principles they choose in a country with 'no central government'?

To me this comment you made:

Quote: No nationalization of the [my country's] economy: No more planned or command economies will manifest.

(Free unencumbered markets. Use any system you please: Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism. If you are a fascist/corporatist, then you're sh!t out of luck)

means that some states, if they elect, in the country can choose to have a welfare system and take some of the profits from the population and working class and help the poor and other states can choose others systems...

I'm trying to understand the limits and/or freedom the individual states in my country has as they set up their constitution in a nation with 'no central government.'

Also, regarding the means of exchange -- currency...., who manages the currency, (dollar)? What is the currency based on and who owns that? Do the states have complete control to create their own currency?

What I plan on doing for this scenario is presenting you with a country (with states) based upon the hypothetical parameters we have discussed. For the sake of our debate (argument), the country will have adopted these governing principles in 2006. I will apply the 'no-central government principles' to the country and then move the clock up 25 years.

Then, again for the sake of a debate, I will present some arguments and challenges to a no-government system the country has experienced after 25 years that you can address. Hope this sounds ok...

[Darth Tiberius]

canadagal wrote: "Democracy is the best form of government for all the world's inhabitants."

do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?

It is good only if the poeple desire it.

[EugenicHegemony]

greeneye wrote: Ok, however, help me understand --- what is the 'cohesive element' that keeps my country a country? With no central government, if my country has 12 states, with their own Constitution and laws and natural resources, etc., what prevents or keeps some states from breaking away from the rest of the country if their population chooses to take that action? Or perhaps this is an option open to the states in the country ...?

No one has dominion over another.

Quote: Also, as each state develops its own Constitution, since there is no central government, I assume then, since there is no framework to draw from, (central document) -- they (the states) can create whatever type of governing structure they want.

The Constitution has been shredded in the U.S. already, and what's stopped them..Nothing, this UNION? It's a delusion.

Quote: Thus for the sake of our hypothetical argument, I will assume some states can choose to have a socialistic type of local government, where they unanimously vote to have their state constitution and laws adopt a welfare system, subsidized medicine, etc. and other states will choose other forms of local governance.

Socialism/Communism/Capitalism: all economic systems. None of that has anything to do with government.

Quote: Can I assume the people in those states have the complete freedom to set up their local governance for their states based upon whatever set of governing principles they choose in a country with 'no central government'?

You can assume anything you want.

Quote: To me this comment you made:

EugenicHegemony wrote: No nationalization of the economy: No more planned or command economies will manifest.

(Free unencumbered markets. Use any system you please: Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism. If you are a fascist/corporatist, then you're sh!t out of luck)

means that some states, if they elect, in the country can choose to have a welfare system and take some of the profits from the population and working class and help the poor and other states can choose others systems...

It means that those who are willing participants can choose to use any economic system they please, and that government is not allowed to interfere in a free peoples economy. There is no force by anyone in what I have written out.

Quote: I'm trying to understand the limits and/or freedom the individual states in my country has as they set up their constitution in a nation with 'no central government.'

You can make it authoritarian/totalitarian if you like.

Quote:
Also, regarding the means of exchange -- currency...., who manages the currency, (dollar)? What is the currency based on and who owns that? Do the states have complete control to create their own currency? Everything now is based on credit. Plastic has become our currency, and it's backed by sh!t..

Something is only worth what another is willing to pay for it. Barters or virtual E gold: commodity based money. Our massive debt has been brought on by our fiat currency and government bonds. Perpetual war hasn't helped, and never will.


I asked above for alternatives to a central banking authority. I don't have all the answers, and still noone has bothered to even try and answer that question.

22)Abolish all Central Banks. (Ending the governmental monopoly on: prices, rents, wages, salaries, capital, inflation, deflation, interest rates, stock market just to name a few. That is our lifeblood and it's not capitalism; it's more like nationalized communism)

*I would like some ideas for a replacement of these*

Mutual banks??

Quote: What I plan on doing for this scenario is presenting you with a country (with states) based upon the hypothetical parameters we have discussed. For the sake of our debate (argument), the country will have adopted these governing principles in 2006. I will apply the 'no-central government principles' to the country and then move the clock up 25 years.

Then, again for the sake of a debate, I will present some arguments and challenges to a no-government system the country has experienced after 25 years that you can address. Hope this sounds ok...

Ok, take a look at the early Pennsylvanian colony. That was a decentralized system and it was successful for around 4 years.

[Quicksurf]

I think all people want to be free and deserve to be free.

However, many don't even know what it is.

[The Redcoat]

Johannes wrote: Hot Soup wrote: The best government would loosely join all the nations of the world, like a confederation. A nation could join the confederation by a majority vote of the people. Once joining this confederation, a nations would have to surrender their armies but be protected by the central unit. Once all nations join we will have peace and the central army will become a police force.

I agree, but that is exactly what people are scared of. You've just opened yourself up to those afraid of a totalitarian police state.

If the world binds together, even those who scream equality to the people are afraid of losing their voice in the even larger mass of people all trying to get their way. Also, with a goverment that large, representing (as best it could) all of the people on Earth, do you think anything would ever be accomplished? There'd be over a hundred political parties (understatement), and debates could go on for years.

Humans are tribal beings by nature, world government or peace will never be accomplished for long, if ever. You shouldn't look to unite everyone under one banner, but co-exsist with mutal respect and understanding.

Again, it's still a challenge in itself.

[Phaedrus]

NeedsREALfreedom wrote: Democracy is the slathering will of a rything, stupid, evil mob.


Indeed... unfettered democracy has another name: mob rule. That's why the notion of a "Constitutional Republic" came about. There was a desire (naturally) for government of, for, and by the people... but the tyranny of the majority was feared. Thus, the idea of a Constitution was born. Let the people vote for what they want, within reasonable limits and within an immutable governing framework established by a founding document.

The real difficulties seem to be (a) finding people smart enough to craft such a document for a given people, and (b) keeping said document from being "re-interpreted" too much as generations pass. Circumstances change over time, and there will always be a need for some body of persons to interpret how the founding document relates to the current situation. In my own country, there is a growing trend toward nullifying the Second Amendment to our founding document; the right to keep and bear arms... but that's a subject for a different Forum.

Democracy is one ingredient to good government. A firm founding document is another. Consider Sodium-Chloride (NaCl); salt. It is a necessary element for the survival of the human organism. But either component alone (Sodium or Chlorine) can be fatal.

[EugenicHegemony]

quicksurf28 wrote: I think all people want to be free and deserve to be free.

However, many don't even know what it is. Neither do you....


Like what your jingoist government did to Iraq. :-| That ain't freedom Jack.

Jingoist piece of sh!t U.S. government.

[swite]

Modern Democracy is the best system of government we have ever had in the history of civilization, and it s*cks!

Lets hope there is a research team out there trying to figure out a better method or we are all doomed.

[greeneye]

EugenicHegemony wrote:

Quote: Ok, however, help me understand --- what is the 'cohesive element' that keeps my country a country? With no central government, if my country has 12 states, with their own Constitution and laws and natural resources, etc., what prevents or keeps some states from breaking away from the rest of the country if their population chooses to take that action? Or perhaps this is an option open to the states in the country ...?
No one has dominion over another.

If there is no central government in my country what prevents a group of domineering individuals from choosing and implementing communism or socialism rule for their states, i.e. China, North Korea.... ?

Remember, we're not talking about the U.S. Let's stay focused on the idea of a country with no central government. And half of the states choose to elect a socialistic and/or communistic system to govern themselves.

If that's the case, where is liberty and freedom for the people?

[EugenicHegemony]

greeneye wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote:

Quote: Ok, however, help me understand --- what is the 'cohesive element' that keeps my country a country? With no central government, if my country has 12 states, with their own Constitution and laws and natural resources, etc., what prevents or keeps some states from breaking away from the rest of the country if their population chooses to take that action? Or perhaps this is an option open to the states in the country ...?
No one has dominion over another.

If there is no central government in my country what prevents a group of domineering individuals from choosing and implementing communism or socialism rule for their states, i.e. China, North Korea.... ?

Remember, we're not talking about the U.S. Let's stay focused on the idea of a country with no central government. And half of the states choose to elect a socialistic and/or communistic system to govern themselves.

If that's the case, where is liberty and freedom for the people?

If there's no central government then communism and socialism is not compulsory, and anyone can use any economic system they please so it doesn't matter...

[social]

canadagal wrote: "Democracy is the best form of government for all the world's inhabitants."

do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?

On average, yes. :wink:

[_reticentness]

canadagal wrote: "Democracy is the best form of government for all the world's inhabitants."

do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?

if you mean it literally than no. you can't please everyone. I don't think there any government that would be best for ALL peoples.