|
mobodick
|
 |
March 22, 2013, 07:59:01 PM |
|
So there you have it. All these three examples show that humans organize their societies in a way that there is a leader that does all the big stuff and there are the workers who care about the details.
We call it governance and even monkeys do it. Tell you what, you just slide those goalposts wherever you feel makes you most comfortable, m'kay? Hey, you started refering to tribal celts as a good example of government-less society.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The trust scores you see are subjective; they will change depending on who you have in your trust list. |
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
March 22, 2013, 08:36:50 PM |
|
If you want to play it that way, I'm in favor of more governments... specifically, 6 billion or so, each with only one "citizen."
|
|
|
|
|
mobodick
|
|
March 22, 2013, 09:06:08 PM |
|
If you want to play it that way, I'm in favor of more governments... specifically, 6 billion or so, each with only one "citizen."
Same thing as no government at all. Won't work for the same reasons. This is not me playing, this is just the human situation. But i agree that we need to get some rights back as citizens, if that's what you mean. |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
March 22, 2013, 09:14:08 PM |
|
If you want to play it that way, I'm in favor of more governments... specifically, 6 billion or so, each with only one "citizen."
Same thing as no government at all. Won't work for the same reasons. No, Like you said, treaties. Mutual aid, trade agreements, and just like today, if one government is too weak to defend itself, it joins a defense treaty organization, and larger, better-armed governments will protect it from governments that would like to take it's stuff. It works just fine now. I see no reason why it would not work at smaller scales. |
|
|
|
|
mobodick
|
|
March 22, 2013, 10:21:18 PM |
|
If you want to play it that way, I'm in favor of more governments... specifically, 6 billion or so, each with only one "citizen."
Same thing as no government at all. Won't work for the same reasons. No, Like you said, treaties. Mutual aid, trade agreements, and just like today, if one government is too weak to defend itself, it joins a defense treaty organization, and larger, better-armed governments will protect it from governments that would like to take it's stuff. It works just fine now. I see no reason why it would not work at smaller scales. Yeah, but people went through a lot of misery to get to the point where we could have these treaties. History shows that it is not at all an easy (or safe) process to stabilize different parties in a political sense and maintain a stable economy on top of that. There will allways be an overarching governmental structure to create the framework of society like we know it. So all you want is an extra layer of government that is supposed to compete against itself internally. At best you'll be moving problems around, maybe temporarily fixing them, but with the added layers of bureaucracy that need to be supported by society. Even larger and better armed governments don't always have the ability to protect you. The situation will be no different than today in the kinds of dynamics you'll find. You would need a complete global destabilization of power to even get it going. I think it will break everything to start with and fix nothing in the end. |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
March 22, 2013, 10:38:15 PM |
|
There will allways be an overarching governmental structure to create the framework of society like we know it. You say this like it is established scientific fact... but it's just your personal opinion. |
|
|
|
|
mobodick
|
|
March 22, 2013, 11:07:12 PM |
|
There will allways be an overarching governmental structure to create the framework of society like we know it. You say this like it is established scientific fact... but it's just your personal opinion. It's an observation. Pretty factual.. |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
March 22, 2013, 11:11:34 PM |
|
There will allways be an overarching governmental structure to create the framework of society like we know it. You say this like it is established scientific fact... but it's just your personal opinion. It's an observation. Pretty factual... No, it's a prediction. And one based on a flawed premise. |
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
March 22, 2013, 11:22:57 PM |
|
Let me ask you this:
What, exactly, are you arguing against?
And what, exactly, do you think I am arguing for?
I honestly can't fathom the former, and I doubt you understand the latter.
|
|
|
|
|
mobodick
|
|
March 23, 2013, 12:27:12 AM |
|
Let me ask you this:
What, exactly, are you arguing against?
And what, exactly, do you think I am arguing for?
I honestly can't fathom the former, and I doubt you understand the latter.
I'm arguing that the examples in your videos are hardly good examples of possible futures for mankind and that if you don't see that you have no clue what drives a mean human being in a given situation. What you're arguing for, as far as i can see, would not solve any of the problems we currently have with governments without breaking our current system in an catastrophic way. I say this because i know that the problem is not with the system, its with the humans. |
|
|
|
|
Jobe7 (OP)
Full Member
 Offline
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
Now they are thinking what to do with me
|
|
March 23, 2013, 12:38:09 AM |
|
A decentralized (administrative) government CAN exist, with more power to councils/states/counties (whatever).
It's based from a combination of how the US and UK works, but with the decentralized government part.
-----------
I mean, 1st off, this style of government is not going to last, there are other ways, just because no ones fully thought it up and tested it, does not mean it doesn't exist. Trial and error, and don't get me wrong, this current governments 'principle' was sound, but unfortunately the bankers built the fiat system in a way knowing that they could corrupt it (Rothschilds for anyone that cares).
It wasn't the fault of THIS government, it got infected, its diseased, and way too corrupt to save as it's exists now. The trust and the faith is simply not there. What's needed is more transparency and more growth.
And growth is best when it's decentralized to give the opportunity for competition! There is no argument that can beat the fact that 2 things in growth competition with each other grows faster and better than 1 thing that has a total monopoly. Not saying it wouldn't grow, but the 2 things would grow MUCH faster.
---------------------
A nation offers the opportunity to the land, stating that at least 2 must sign-up, it can't be just 1. And after testing, there is nothing they can do but grow. Especially in this economic day and age. Then bit by bit other councils/states/etc signup, free choice of tax, of setting wages, of their education, their police focus, their own laws ... they wouldn't be forced to signup, but who wouldn't want work and live in a place like that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
March 23, 2013, 12:41:15 AM |
|
Let me ask you this:
What, exactly, are you arguing against?
And what, exactly, do you think I am arguing for?
I honestly can't fathom the former, and I doubt you understand the latter.
I'm arguing that the examples in your videos are hardly good examples of possible futures for mankind and that if you don't see that you have no clue what drives a mean human being in a given situation. Well, there's part of the problem, I have posted no videos. I gave you links to a few past posts, and one article. those past posts may have contained videos, but we are not here discussing them. You asked for historical examples of anarchies. I gave you them. If you say that they were violent, (with the exception of the Pennsylvania one) as your main argument against them, well, I would point you to their contemporary governments. Those were considerably worse, and modern governments have not improved much. What you're arguing for, as far as i can see, would not solve any of the problems we currently have with governments without breaking our current system in an catastrophic way.
I say this because i know that the problem is not with the system, its with the humans. And here's the other half of the problem: you do not, nor, I think, do you have any desire to, understand exactly what it is I advocate, else you would have at minimum, called it by name. In summation, you are arguing against me, personally, and not what I advocate. I could state the sky was blue, and you would debate terminology. I think we're done here. |
|
|
|
|
mobodick
|
|
March 23, 2013, 01:07:22 AM |
|
Let me ask you this:
What, exactly, are you arguing against?
And what, exactly, do you think I am arguing for?
I honestly can't fathom the former, and I doubt you understand the latter.
I'm arguing that the examples in your videos are hardly good examples of possible futures for mankind and that if you don't see that you have no clue what drives a mean human being in a given situation. Well, there's part of the problem, I have posted no videos. I gave you links to a few past posts, and one article. those past posts may have contained videos, but we are not here discussing them. You asked for historical examples of anarchies. I gave you them. If you say that they were violent, (with the exception of the Pennsylvania one) as your main argument against them, well, I would point you to their contemporary governments. Those were considerably worse, and modern governments have not improved much. What you're arguing for, as far as i can see, would not solve any of the problems we currently have with governments without breaking our current system in an catastrophic way.
I say this because i know that the problem is not with the system, its with the humans. And here's the other half of the problem: you do not, nor, I think, do you have any desire to, understand exactly what it is I advocate, else you would have at minimum, called it by name. In summation, you are arguing against me, personally, and not what I advocate. I could state the sky was blue, and you would debate terminology. I think we're done here. lol., i'm arguing your ideas, not your person. I think this was the start of our argument: This may be a surprise to you:
They already have those tools. It's called "government." I propose taking them away.
I'm just telling you it, just like your several later ideas, is unrealistic. But sure, if you want we're done. |
|
|
|
|
|
