A simple question

[ComradeRed]

What is your preference of government?

[La Tierra Hermosa]

Democratic republic.
Not one where the leader controls everything, and no one can remove him/her from office.

[ComradeRed]

So, something similiar to the U$ gov't? OR something sans leader?

[Hoppe]

none

[Pete]

Hoppe, do you mean no authority, or no government. Corporate existance can be considered a governemnt, and I do consider corporate governance to be a model of government.

[bazonix]

Authority is fine, government is not authority it is power.

Authority is knowledge, wisdom, skill. The word has been abused.

No government please. I don't need it.

[Bolshevika]

Socialism.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 04:20 PM
Hoppe, do you mean no authority, or no government. Corporate existance can be considered a governemnt, and I do consider corporate governance to be a model of government.
No government, at least not in the way it exists now. (And for your info, I am not an admirer of huge multinational corporations).

[revolutionindia]

INdia needs a Dictator so do many other countries.

[Ahura Mazda]

A very restricted Democratic Republic where the voters must prove knowledgable about the constitution (at least know the articles and the amendments).

[Coffee]

Originally posted by Ahura [email protected] 4 2004, 03:46 AM
A very restricted Democratic Republic where the voters must prove knowledgable about the constitution (at least know the articles and the amendments).
So you would have them line up outside of buildings like how blacks had to do in the 1960s?

That sounds like a free state to me.

[Ahura Mazda]

eh?

Everyone would have to take the test once. And the tests would be administered in voting booths for first-timers or people who had failed the test before.

Besides, Coffee, that has nothing to do with anything. Sure, it has a connotation reminiscent of grandfather clause and all that, but why should ignorant, or worse, stupid people be voting?

[Y2A]

A regulated capitalist state which keeps corporations in check but gives people the freedom to chooze.

[Pete]

You can chose work for 7.00 bucks an hour at place A and place B in order to pay rent and get food, or you can starve on the street. That is unless you are lucky to be able to land a cushy manegerial job, then, wow, you can afford to live and not do much of the work that generates the capital! (Unless of course you are a computer worker, then you become a microserf).

-Pete

[Ahura Mazda]

If that isn't a bunch of spouted off stereotypical communist bs, I don't know what to call it.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 04:20 AM
You can chose work for 7.00 bucks an hour at place A and place B in order to pay rent and get food, or you can starve on the street. That is unless you are lucky to be able to land a cushy manegerial job, then, wow, you can afford to live and not do much of the work that generates the capital! (Unless of course you are a computer worker, then you become a microserf).

-Pete
Yes, but you can actually work you way out of it in a regulated capitalist state.

[Ahura Mazda]

Hey Y2A, how does it feel to have a barbed-wire collar around your neck?



<-------

[A Pict]

Absolute Minimalist State.

Never forget that all the state can offer is violence, and therefore shoudl only be used as a last resort. In other words, on whom reasons has no hold, the violent

Police- To Protect against Violence internally (Force and Fraud).

Military- To Protect against Invasion.

Courts- To settle disputes.

[ComradeRed]

Never forget that all the state can offer is violence, and therefore shoudl only be used as a last resort. In other words, on whom reasons has no hold, the violent

Police- To Protect against Violence internally (Force and Fraud).

Military- To Protect against Invasion.

Courts- To settle disputes.

Me, if i were having a gov&#39;t like that, i would have the military be militia. It saves money, prevents imperialism, and oppression/repression.

Like the U&#036; today, it spends so much money on the military, I&#39;ve been told it is equal to &#036;60000 an hour since Jesus was born &#39;til now. I&#39;d cut 90% of that, leaving the General dudes in charge. With that money, we could advance so far in science, arts, etc.

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by Ahura [email protected] 3 2004, 09:46 PM
A very restricted Democratic Republic where the voters must prove knowledgable about the constitution (at least know the articles and the amendments).
That would be the southern Jim Crow states 1950&#39;s-1960&#39;s

The thing you don&#39;t realize is that the people you are trying to keep from voting already don&#39;t vote because they know it doesn&#39;t change anything.

[ComradeRed]

I&#39;ve gotta new question, is the state necessary? Most government types, not economic appartuses, do not work.
Demokracy- If every fool agrees on a foolish idea, and since there are more fools than wise men, than would the foolish idea be right, merely because they have the majority?
Republik- As soon as the represenatives are elected, they don&#39;t care about the people.
Dictatorship- It is too powerful, given too much power to one man. Imagine the U&#036; more of a dictatorship.
Military Installed gov&#39;t- Too easy to oppress people.

I do not like gov&#39;t, every attempt to make one has a flaw. Why believe in a gov&#39;t if it won&#39;t work?

[Rasta Sapian]

its simple:

a democretically elected socialist party, with a strong government to instill left winged ideals to the people, a system of large public workers unions and labour administrators via the government.

a classless society, with a goal of ensuring future generation with an abundance of natural resources and the infrustucture and technology to maintain and propel humanity into the future&#33;

A prolitariot ready for change&#33;

[BuyOurEverything]

In theory I don&#39;t really have a problem with testing voters. Who cares if it has been used a a racist law in the past? The test would be administered to everyone, not everyone of one race. Stupid people have no right to decide the future of a country. In practice though, I think it would be pretty tricky and probably impractical to impliment.

[dancingoutlaw]

I&#39;ve gotta new question, is the state necessary?

Absolutly.

I would rather have to live with the dumbest among us (who don&#39;t usually vote) than in tyranny.

A repulic has proven to be (even with it&#39;s faults) the best fom of government so far.

peace

[LSD]

A repulic has proven to be (even with it&#39;s faults) the best fom of government so far.


That&#39;s debatable. But even if one accepts it, the operative phrase is "so far." There really has not been any good attempt at creating a true classless stateless society, therefore although republicanism may be superior to, say, feudalism, there is no reason to believe it itself should not be replaced.

[ComradeRed]

THe U&#036; is a "republic", yet it now functions like an oligarchy. The congress is spineless to the demands of the president. If you guys look at the soviet constitution it is FAR better than the U&#036; constitution, only if they followed it *sigh*; however, the only flaw i saw was that one may be in every branch at once, while in the U&#036; one can hold only one political office. Republicanism still has its flaws, and i firmly believe the flaws outweigh its advantages. Everyone gets to vote on who will be spineless in congress, doesn&#39;t sound to good to me.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by Ahura [email protected] 4 2004, 04:27 AM
Hey Y2A, how does it feel to have a barbed-wire collar around your neck?



<-------
It sucks. You know being able to work yourself up an all. :D

BTW the communist are right in a way. Once corporations become to large and globalize they create monoplies in small third world nations and libertarianism is not going to do anything to solve that problem. As I said before the only way to stop it is to have an international body that can enforce "fair" trade. Unregulated capitalism can not work and will be foiled by corruption at the top.

[ComradeRed]

Excellent point Y2A
Once corporations become to large and globalize they create monoplies in small third world nations and libertarianism is not going to do anything to solve that problem. corporations are really terrible, i spoke to extremely liberal cappies and they&#39;re ok with corporations exploiting people for cheaper goods, it&#39;s a shame.