I support capitalism. A democracy would be my second choice. Your views?

none.Government sucks.

Yay, anarchy, let's all get naked, fuck a bunch of cows to get HIV, and kill ourselves.

"Capitalism" is not a government type.



Governments are inherently abusive and always shift towards Totalitarianism. Therefore the best thing is to have no government.




That is what you should be doing, due to your complete lack of knowledge on the subject.

the one where there is no government..

i like the federal goverment

i think democratic
the australian government is pretty good
american is totally mucked up though, the president is a shitbag..
not that our prime minister is much better
apologies to anyone i offend!!

xxx

This thread, from the first post to ^^ that one ^^ makes me rofl. why post something like:




Everyone here is funny, good try guys.

oh and just to stay on topic:

Communalism_wiki
Communalism_aa

Although neither really give you a good idea of Communalism, its probably what you should look into

I totally agree with you on that one. Who said that men are driven by their greed, and nothing else? I think it's Schoppenhauer, but I'm not sure...
Anyway, positive anarchy is the only type of government that might give both equality and freedom, without hidden meaning. It's sad it's based on a tough supposition: that men are good...



That's not anarchy. That's bullshitism.

So you're gonna diss the thread, and then be like "Oh, and here's my view". Get the hell out of this thread, holmes.

And yes, Cyrrylia, capitalism is a type of government.

Wrong. Ultraliberalism is the kind of government associated with capitalism.

Believe what you will. But capitalism is, indeed, a form of government.

Dude. Capitalism is the idea behind ultraliberalism, its "value" if you prefer. Capitalism doesn't have an ideal, doesn't have laws associated. It's just a warhorse, if you catch my drift. It's the same for communism: communism is the value, socialism the political structure

So you're saying that for years, the Soviet Union was not under harsh communist rule?

Then tell me, oh great savior who think he has all the answers, what is good about Anarchy?
The freedom to kill your neighbor for nothing? Or Slavery perhaps?
Now I'm not getting into liberalism and that kinda of stuff 'cos I do believe the guy was talkin' about the common knowledge of anarchy wich is not following any laws, but of course, you probably didn't bother using your head, and looked for the easiest way into getting an argument with someone.
Congrats.

democracy cause of freedom of speech, religion, etc

Democracy why? cause i said it rules

Anarchy isn't that. That's what everyone thinks that anarchy is; however, it isn't AT ALL what it appears to be. Anarchy supposes that man knew what a type of government was, and thought that he was capable of auto-regulating himself. It comes out of a movement of temperance, not an abolition of laws. The principle itself lies in the fact that laws don't disappear: they merge with the human noos (or, if you prefer, traditions, although I'm making a huge mistake translating it this way).
The biggest mistake commoners do is link anarchy to the law of nature. On the contrary, presence of government is the law of nature.


I just said what I had to say to that. Oligarchist? Me? If positive anarchy and total equality was coming, I wouldn't mind. Better than having a pseudo-equality and ploutocracy.

Did you read what I wrote? Socialism is the ideal, Communism the public values.

I already made a similar thread like this, so close this one.

I might as well say that Cookies are a form of Government. Ice Cream too. I support Steak.


Do not be such an idiot. Capitalism is an economic system. It is not a government.

Capitalism is not a type of government.

Anyway... I support a Republican form of government because democracy is too direct. Communism and totaliterianism are too restrictive.

In theory communism is a good governemnt, and then, when it becomes a reality, it is horrid.

Not true, governments are created to protect the rights of their citizens. If the officials in charge fail that then the people have to overthrow the government. Anarchism never lasts long when it does exist.


Exactly. There can be different kinds of capitalism. A republic can have capitalism, a democracy can have capitalism, and if I'm not mistaken there are communist countries that are capitalists (China).

But anyway, my belief is that the best form of government is a democratic-republic with strong federal body.

1. ^^ The ideas behind capitalism, though similar to democracy, are different. A capitalist government is frankly the same as a republic.

2.

No, it was different. And you treat people like shit in most of your threads, so don't tell people to close this thread when it was more thought through and better put together than any of the threads you have made. It's sad that getting banned didn't teach you anything.

I think what you're talking about is a laissez-faire government-economy relationship. That can exist in most forms of government. But go ahead, explain to me the differences.

You're right in the sense that certain countries use that sort of system. But here's what I mean:

With a capitalist government, there is a bit more control in the government, but not much more. And in a capitalist government, yes, the economy is different, but that is not the only thing that changes. But in the economy of a capitalist government, everything is up to the business owners and the people in control. In a democracy, however, people have more power, and can have more impact on the economy. Yes, the differences are few, but they do exist.

I don't know. I guess a system where the public votes for 15 government representatives. This would allow the public to REALLY choose their voices......

And they do such a good job of it do they not?

It is true. Name me a government that did NOT end up rolling towards totalitarianism over its life, before it had to be reformed in some way. Even the US is doing it. Over the centuries, we have been going from very minarchist to Strong Central Government.



O RLY?

Check Celtic Ireland from 650 to 1650. That is a thousand years of being Anarchist. The Inuit are another example. And the Haudenosaunee were very Anarchist.


I usually like the past, but how about you get out of the 1700's? Back then the thing was "Democracy never lasts long when it does exist" because everybody know that Monarchy was the only way to have a country. Democracy was inherently unstable, and would dissolve into chaos. We all know how that went out.

So even though there have only been a handful of long-lived Anarchist places, does not mean anything other than it was not popular in the past.




Okay, seriously, stop it. There is no such thing as a Capitalist government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

It is a freekin Economic system! It is not a form of government. Get that through your skull.

Any kind...as long as im the PM

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been."

~ Winston Churchill ~

I think that pretty much sums it up.


Here is a funny quote, by none other than Chris Rock

" You don't pay taxes - they take taxes."

most countries are democratic and capitalist. Democracy has to do with the government, and capitalism with the economy.


umm, elaborate on that please?

And i have a question. caemin, what's the difference between democracy and republic? i'm genuinely curious, i didn't know there was a difference.

You sir are a knobmonkey. You clearly know nothing about politics or religion.


Yeah well, fuck you.

Alright, here's some for you all:

1. Suppose that you could democratically instate a near-total dictator, who, at the end of his term, would either be re-elected or executed? It might work. The fear of being executed would cause them to temper their actions. You would just have to build some unchangeable clauses into the constitution and make sure the guards were more loyal to the nation than the dictator. Naturally, nobody would run for the position. You don't run, you get elected whether you like it or not.

2. Anarcho-capitalism. Look it up. It's the ultimate in self-responsibility.

3. What's wrong with monarchy? For several caesars in a row, each caesar would search the empire for a worth successor. It worked well for a while.



Hardly. Democracy has only as many freedoms as the simple majority are willing to grant. It's called "tyrany of the majority." A republican form of government is much more free. That's why America isn't a democracy. It's a democratic republic. If all a nation's decisions were based on the whim of the majority, chaos would ensue.



I like your style. Seriously, guys, why would anyone purposefully insist on the wrong definition of a word when you clearly have access to online dictionaries and Wikipedia? It's not hard not to look like an idiot; just use the free resources available to you.



Spam much? And such original spam at that.

I support a Republic or Democracy. The beliefs of Communism or Socialism are based off the ideas of a "utopia," which is impossible to achieve (as mankind has proven time and again). Anarchy, no matter what approach or motive, positive or negative, will always lead to chaos. Until humans can cope with each other, the most efficent form of government is a Republic or Democracy.

And the best. lol.



I used to support Fascism. It is a great system if you value security over freedom. And it is extremely efficient.

Which is why I hate people saying Democracy or Republics are the most efficient. They are incredibly...not efficient.


Interesting that places managed it for many many years. To a 1000 years even. How about you read the thread before spouting nonsense.

Don't bother, Cyrrylia. Anarchy is a lieu commun; it has been given so many bad images, people think they know all about it, when in fact they don't know anything.
The same phenomenon applies to machiavelism, tbh...

Kazakhstan's government of course!

We have a monarchy and it's working quite well I guess. I don't think Anarcho-Capitalism would work out that great. Not every person is that responsible

(I assume) Belgium: Your monarch is hardly a monarch. Parliament holds all the power. Albert II is a figurehead, a king of the people but not of the state.

And with Anarcho-Capitalism, you have to be responsible. Otherwise you run out of food, and die.

That is a plus.

communism lol i know what im saying so dont think i dont..

COMMUNISM. lozlz

just kidding. i like the kind of government we have now.

Holy shit im about to have another 5 paragraph rant like in the "guns in america thread"

I never thought so many people could be misinformed on how basic systemsof government function....

To the person who put forth the idea of instating a near total dictator that governed under the penalty of execution.

That system (if you call it a system) seems flawed from the start, if its a near total dictator then that means there would have to be a higher governing power above him that would hold the authority to execute him. Thus that higher government could use this dictator as its pawn and instead of one total dictator you have a whole group of them ....

You have to realize that just like Rome, most governments fall from within before they fall from without

Corruption is the AIDS of government that weakens it and allows it to be slowly picked apart, no governemtn is imune to it and some governments even though they sound good on paper create a perfect enviroment for this (communism).

It really depends on your perspective weather your willing to sacrifice security for freedom or freedom for security. cyrrilia has pretty much covered that part though and I totall agree so I wont go there.

Personally im not in favor of one system over another, democracy as represented in the U.S's system would probably work ALOT better on a smaller scale, its rather inefficent in its current state though.

The problem though with any remotley succesful or "good" form of government is that it starts small and is therfore more manageble and held acountable by the people but as it grows because of its popularity everyone wants to join and it expands to the point where its too large to manage and implodes from within

That is exactly what happned to the Roman empire and most great empires/dynastys and thats exactly what is happening to the United States. Theres a strong relationship to how the Romans died out and what is happening to the U.S

end rant....

I think that a democracy that was more state run, and less federal, would be the best. It would give each state more power over them selves. This is good because the state knows what is best for it.

kingdom is the best, me as the king and some cute lady as mah queen




hahahehe

*rolls eyes*

seriously ...GTFO

DEMOCRACY POWER!!!!!!

Do you know what democracy really is? If yes, you wouldn't say democracy. You'd say republic.
Democracy has one big flaw: nothing will ever stop the majority. It is therefore a paradox in itself: the people have the power...but they don't. Only the people in the majority have any kind of power.

Kim Jong Il?

Nawh, The one we have now is alright. As long as it doesn't cause any more wars.

Which is human nature.

Which means it will happen.

Which means our governments will destroy us.

Which means we should no have no government.

Phail.


You really suck BTW, what the fuck are you fucking writing, a fucking poem? Why the fuck won't you fucking start fucking writing in fucking non-fucking poetry fucking style?

Who fails, exactly? Me, for explaining what a democracy really is, or you for writing a one-word reply?

That was a fucking topological reasoning schematic, you godfucking moron.