Poll: Favourite Ideology

[Susano]

Well thats the problem, is that Anarchism is Socialism - Government (some kinds)

There are two main types of Anarchism, Liberal Anarchism, and Anarcho-socialism.

Neo-cons advocate that the government should only run the basics and all else goes to the people to run privately - thats essentially economic Anarchism, just that the Neo cons, hold Adam Smiths - Wealth of Nations - and his mighty invisible hands above all else.

I was talking about the type of anarchy that's basically extremely refined capitalism, there are no laws, no taxes etc.
That is the Anarchism that would really appeal to me, and I don't see how it is really impossible.

 

[Sneaklemming]

Since we are just playing pretend and anything goes in that scenario I guess I would have to say the best form for me would be a dictatorship with me at the head.

I like that option the best, all the power, none of the worry.

Are you kidding me? All dictators become paranoid wreaks!!!

 

[Susano]

Yes but if those who are born rich f**k up they lose everything and if those who are born poor do something amazing they move up. And to be frank you kind of twisted my words, I didn't actually say rich and poor, I said people who do s**t and people who don't.

Lastly if you think I'm wrong look at the poll capitalism is number 2 lastime I checked.

First off, it's 4th, behind Anarchism, Socialism and Liberal Democracy.
Second, It's very hard for the rich to f**k up (I'm talking about very rich) or the poor to do something amazing. Also Once these "Born rich" people have a few businesses set up, they don't have to do anything.
I'm not attacking you or your beliefs, I'm merely stating why I disapprove of capitalism.
Not only that, but since when did the majority make your facts any more right?

 

[Xrysthos]

Democracy is probably the best option, but social-darwinism would be interesting. Very interesting, actually.

Go on tellus about it: is it like Eugenics? Because thats scary stuff

When I say interesting I mean as a social experiment - how would it work, what would it lead to, and not as an ideology that would actually be implemented somewhere. I would like to know if it's what would be required for humans to advance as a species, but I can't say that I'm partial to it. And yes, as you mention in a later post, it is harsh.

Edits: Yes, it is similar to eugenics - in short applying "survival of the fittest" to socialism to propagate society and humankind in a long term prospective. Again - it is not an idea that I advocate, but the social impacts the implementation of such an ideology would cause would be interesting.

 

[Sneaklemming]

Well thats the problem, is that Anarchism is Socialism - Government (some kinds)

There are two main types of Anarchism, Liberal Anarchism, and Anarcho-socialism.

Neo-cons advocate that the government should only run the basics and all else goes to the people to run privately - thats essentially economic Anarchism, just that the Neo cons, hold Adam Smiths - Wealth of Nations - and his mighty invisible hands above all else.

I was talking about the type of anarchy that's basically extremely refined capitalism, there are no laws, no taxes etc.
That is the Anarchism that would really appeal to me, and I don't see how it is really impossible.

You mean like privatised police/education/health etc. Thats extreme Neo-liberalism, Thatcher and Reagan x 2

It's interesting - the German governmental ministries are allowed a minimum of 3 ministries Justice, Defence and Treasury (I think) - and they would withdraw their involvement in civil society to just those three areas and privatise all else.

Maybe its just that todays society is too complex, enviroment etc.

BTW - the smallest the German ministries ever got was 13.

 

[Susano]

Democracy is probably the best option, but social-darwinism would be interesting. Very interesting, actually.

Go on tellus about it: is it like Eugenics? Because thats scary stuff

When I say interesting I mean as a social experiment - how would it work, what would it lead to, and not as an ideology that would actually be implemented somewhere. I would like to know if it's what would be required for humans to advance as a species, but I can't say that I'm partial to it. And yes, as you mention in a later post, it is harsh.

It seems like Eugenics has become obsolete with the introduction of Genetic Engineering, as that would be like selective breeding but you don't have to wait a few generations for it to take effect.

 

[manaman]

Since we are just playing pretend and anything goes in that scenario I guess I would have to say the best form for me would be a dictatorship with me at the head.

I like that option the best, all the power, none of the worry.

Are you kidding me? All dictators become paranoid wreaks!!!

You forget this is my imaginationland nobody wants to kill me in my happy place.

 

[flare09]

What? No Communism?

 

[Sneaklemming]

Democracy is probably the best option, but social-darwinism would be interesting. Very interesting, actually.

Go on tellus about it: is it like Eugenics? Because thats scary stuff

When I say interesting I mean as a social experiment - how would it work, what would it lead to, and not as an ideology that would actually be implemented somewhere. I would like to know if it's what would be required for humans to advance as a species, but I can't say that I'm partial to it. And yes, as you mention in a later post, it is harsh.

It seems like Eugenics has become obsolete with the introduction of Genetic Engineering, as that would be like selective breeding but you don't have to wait a few generations for it to take effect.

Eugenics though, would advocate the mass sterilisation of people who scored under the IQ of X - for the evolutionary good of mankind

 

[Susano]

You mean like privatized police/education/health etc. That's extreme Neo-liberalism, Thatcher and Reagan x 2

It's interesting - the German governmental ministries are allowed a minimum of 3 ministries Justice, Defense and Treasury (I think) - and they would withdraw their involvement in civil society to just those three areas and privatize all else.

Maybe its just that today's society is too complex, environment etc.

BTW - the smallest the German ministries ever got was 13.

I would absolutely hate to privatize everything, as that leads to royal screwings-over.
I wouldn't mind privatization on a small scale, but once corporations are called into it, I start to lose trust and fast.

Eugenics though, would advocate the mass sterilisation of people who scored under the IQ of X - for the evolutionary good of mankind

Exactly, I don't agree with that, I was just saying that Genetic engineering would make it much easier.

 

[Sneaklemming]

What? No Communism?

There was only 8 boxes... but Communism is a form of Socialism

 

[flare09]

What? No Communism?

There was only 8 boxes... but Communism is a form of Socialism

Oh ok. Well alright then, that'll be my answer.

 

[Sneaklemming]

You mean like privatized police/education/health etc. That's extreme Neo-liberalism, Thatcher and Reagan x 2

It's interesting - the German governmental ministries are allowed a minimum of 3 ministries Justice, Defense and Treasury (I think) - and they would withdraw their involvement in civil society to just those three areas and privatize all else.

Maybe its just that today's society is too complex, environment etc.

BTW - the smallest the German ministries ever got was 13.

I would absolutely hate to privatize everything, as that leads to royal screwings-over.
I wouldn't mind privatization on a small scale, but once corporations are called into it, I start to lose trust and fast.

Ah well now, you show that you wouldnt really like Anarchism, because if the government scaled down itself over say a few years, people arent going to go mad, power will just disolve into smaller units, like companies and the like.

You forget that Liberal Anarchism was written in a time when companies were only for shipping and the like

 

[Susano]

Oh ok. Well alright then, that'll be my answer.

Communism would work brilliantly in a perfect society, but due to the fallacy of man, it fails as soon as one power hungry person gets into power. Also in a perfect world, we would have no need for any of these structures.

I would absolutely hate to privatize everything, as that leads to royal screwings-over.
I wouldn't mind privatization on a small scale, but once corporations are called into it, I start to lose trust and fast.

Ah well now, you show that you wouldnt really like Anarchism, because if the government scaled down itself over say a few years, people arent going to go mad, power will just disolve into smaller units, like companies and the like.

You forget that Liberal Anarchism was written in a time when companies were only for shipping and the like

I was talking more Fallout 3-esqe Anarchism, with Social rules, no set laws, a system of barter being more heavily relied on than money.
The only reason I would see for it not falling down the proverbial sh*thole is that the only people that would be there would be people that respected the way it works.

 

[Xrysthos]

Anarchy is not possible. People are social animals, and will seek to live together. In the long term it is more effective to have one person making decisions for the benefit of the group, and said group would have to adhere to some kind of common law or ideal, technically rendering the community they eventually form non-anarchist.

 

[Ken_J]

First, "last time I checked"
Second, I see what your saying and my rebutle is look at the early 1900s people came to america because it was capitlist (or the land of oppertiunity) and had good ideas like Mike and Ikes, Bugs Bunny, and even video games. I like capitalism because it breeds creativity, and progress.
Third, remember we are talking about a what if sinero where a game review website becomes a nation, and you have to admit the gaming market is in need of progress at this point.

 

[Zydrate]

Seeing as how I haven't exactly researched/have full knowledge of every one of those, it's hard to vote :/

 

[Sneaklemming]

First, "last time I checked"
Second, I see what your saying and my rebutle is look at the early 1900s people came to america because it was capitlist (or the land of oppertiunity) and had good ideas like Mike and Ikes, Bugs Bunny, and even video games. I like capitalism because it breeds creativity, and progress.
Third, remember we are talking about a what if sinero where a game review website becomes a nation, and you have to admit the gaming market is in need of progress at this point.

Well to be fair I think it was probably the religious and social persecution, war and tyranny were the reasons for people leaving Europe over the years, but infact the British Empire was an advocate of Capitalism long long before America

 

[Susano]

First, "last time I checked"
Second, I see what your saying and my rebutle is look at the early 1900s people came to america because it was capitlist (or the land of oppertiunity) and had good ideas like Mike and Ikes, Bugs Bunny, and even video games. I like capitalism because it breeds creativity, and progress.
Third, remember we are talking about a what if sinero where a game review website becomes a nation, and you have to admit the gaming market is in need of progress at this point.

Sorry, I wasn't adhering to the question in the post, rather the question in the poll was the one I was looking at. Also I fully agree with Capitalism for starting a nation up, but after that the inherited wealth stops the flow of people creating new ideas and creates a wealthy elite.

Anarchy is not possible. People are social animals, and will seek to live together. In the long term it is more effective to have one person making decisions for the benefit of the group, and said group would have to adhear to some kind of common law or ideal, technically rendering the community they eventually form non-anarchist.

I am not going to force my Anarchy on the world, I would be of the idea of setting up a community, and the only people coming to it would be the people attracted to living by Anarchistic "rules"

 

[Ken_J]

That is propably true, and about the Brtish what bugs me is the fact they lecture america on how bad we are (I say that I am the only person I know that can call themselves an actule full blooded american). It is kind of like a drug addict telling his kind about how bad cigarettes are.