Capitalism vs Communism dosnt matter

[Self--Esteem]

What the heck? What happens? Is it because of this stupid 1st May, that I feel the necessity to side with my sworn nemesis Treznor*?

Assumptions like "I do not need a TV. I do not need a mobile phone. It's all pure luxury" sound awfully stupid.






*J/K on that last part

Whoa! I'm a nemesis, now? I haven't been one of those since my RP days!

Oh, not really? Aw, and I was gonna grow the mustache and everything!

Sorry. It is just that I like my nemesis to be extremely stupid and kinda weirdoish.

My previous nemesis was wearing girlish pink shirts along with a dark grey jacket and put out statements such as "Obama is the best President the US ever had because he is Black and liberal" or "All blacks except Obama belong into the zoo or ought to be slaves, at least"

You are just not that talented, I am extremely sorry.

[Jello Biafra]

You obviously do not know anything about small/minimal governments, then. A small government, as described by many Libertarians, does not even have the power to bailout companies or regulate.

Which makes one wonder if it has the power to protect rights at all.

Bailouts and economic regulations have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the law and the underlying judical system.

Judical /=/ Legislative /=/ Executive

Those are three utterly different departments. Constraining the powers of the legislative and the executive to some basic laws does not constrain the judical of any power.

A police force is not part of the judiciary.

Your point?

It is not a part of the legislative either.

Correct, it is part of the executive, whose power would be constrained.

Utopian theories of economic organization--and drives for increased purity of operation--have always struck me as somewhat silly, and rather out of touch with the real world. The only truly effective system for economic organization is one based on slow muddling and semi-responsive government policies, tailored, as appropriate, for the needs and desires of the population at the point in time being observed.

Define 'effectiveness'.
Why is it desireable?

Whatever works to provide a modicum of freedom, security and prosperity. My preference is for a trial-and-error system of tinkering to identify the correct course of action at any given point in time.

I have no doubt that the appropriate course of action varies across time and geography, so I'm not going to pretend that there's some sort of optimal course of action for everyone, all of the time, everywhere--although we often see some strategies that do tend to do rather well in some locations.

How about a trial-and-error where people primarily focus on two of them? Such as freedom and security, for instance? Prosperity would still exist, but wouldn't receive the same focus as the other two.

BURN THE GOVERNMENT! Do you guys realize how idiotic you guy are? Have you ever seen the movie Escape from New York? That's an anarchy.

No, it isn't.

If you really think that's going to promote general freedom, you don't understand how power concentrates into the hands of the few.

So your solution to avoid this is to create a system where power is required to be concentrated into the hands of the few?

[Treznor]

If you really think that's going to promote general freedom, you don't understand how power concentrates into the hands of the few.

So your solution to avoid this is to create a system where power is required to be concentrated into the hands of the few?

My solution is to work with a proven system whereby we can change power on a regular basis and hold those elected to it accountable for their actions.

There is no system that is not vulnerable to corruption and abuse. That's just a fact of life, living as humans. But we can only blame ourselves when safeguards fail, because we're the ones responsible for it. History tells us that anarchy doesn't tend to promote order, and that organizations that are not accountable to the people are more prone to abuse and corruption than those that are. I've seen governments overthrown because they didn't respond to the will of the people. I've never seen a business go bankrupt because people discovered their practices weren't very friendly. Microsoft, Exxon, Dow Chemical and more are still with us in spite of decades of evidence that they're not very good neighbors.

[Jello Biafra]

If you really think that's going to promote general freedom, you don't understand how power concentrates into the hands of the few.

So your solution to avoid this is to create a system where power is required to be concentrated into the hands of the few?

My solution is to work with a proven system whereby we can change power on a regular basis and hold those elected to it accountable for their actions.

While it's true that democracy is an important concept, (even in a representative democracy), it doesn't have very many safeguards other than being able to vote somebody out when their term is up.

There is no system that is not vulnerable to corruption and abuse. That's just a fact of life, living as humans. But we can only blame ourselves when safeguards fail, because we're the ones responsible for it. History tells us that anarchy doesn't tend to promote order,

Can you give an example of an anarchist system that collapsed due to internal disorder?

and that organizations that are not accountable to the people are more prone to abuse and corruption than those that are. I've seen governments overthrown because they didn't respond to the will of the people. I've never seen a business go bankrupt because people discovered their practices weren't very friendly. Microsoft, Exxon, Dow Chemical and more are still with us in spite of decades of evidence that they're not very good neighbors.

This is true, but this doesn't mean that when we create organization that is accountable to the people, that it must be done in a representative manner.

[DaWoad]

so your comparing the world today to the way it was in the dark ages? I think theres been a few developments since then... like the englightenment?

yes but basic human nature hasn't changed much (if at all) since the enlightenment. In fact we simply came up with better, more egalitarian, methods of governance.

Lets take another example. though. Rome was probably one of the most developed nations (certainly the most developed in the western hemisphere) of its time. It introduced (by force) a governing body complete with government controlled and privatized enterprise, government maintained roads, both government (military corps of surgeons) and private medical concerns, sanitation projects etc. etc. etc.
One area into which romeanization was introduced was Great Britain. Then one day *poof* Rome pulls out its armies and all its government in one fell swoop. Anarchist/ libertarian paradise right? All the infrastructure of government in place without the government perfect freedom for all right? Wrong, dead dead wrong (quite literally in many cases). The entire country broke down (slowly but surely declined from day one) until, by the time a solution was found (a new government!) the roman roads were just about all that was left of an advanced civilization.

[Treznor]

If you really think that's going to promote general freedom, you don't understand how power concentrates into the hands of the few.

So your solution to avoid this is to create a system where power is required to be concentrated into the hands of the few?

My solution is to work with a proven system whereby we can change power on a regular basis and hold those elected to it accountable for their actions.

While it's true that democracy is an important concept, (even in a representative democracy), it doesn't have very many safeguards other than being able to vote somebody out when their term is up.

The ability to call politicians to account is enshrined in most modern democracies. Many societies can recall politicians that displease them, but it's up to us to ensure that our governments are truly representative. Ignorance isn't the worst enemy of democracy, apathy is.

There is no system that is not vulnerable to corruption and abuse. That's just a fact of life, living as humans. But we can only blame ourselves when safeguards fail, because we're the ones responsible for it. History tells us that anarchy doesn't tend to promote order,

Can you give an example of an anarchist system that collapsed due to internal disorder?

No, but neither can I give an example of an anarchist system that could be described as "orderly." The history of humanity is described as the march to organize themselves, from anarchy to civilization.

and that organizations that are not accountable to the people are more prone to abuse and corruption than those that are. I've seen governments overthrown because they didn't respond to the will of the people. I've never seen a business go bankrupt because people discovered their practices weren't very friendly. Microsoft, Exxon, Dow Chemical and more are still with us in spite of decades of evidence that they're not very good neighbors.

This is true, but this doesn't mean that when we create organization that is accountable to the people, that it must be done in a representative manner.

No, nothing says it must be that way, and most of human history involves very little representation. But we're still experimenting with representative governments and democracies, and so far I prefer what we've done compared to what came before. I do not care for elites who answer only to profit margins.