jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (20 posts)


  1. lxxy profile image60
    lxxyposted 8 years ago

    I must be off for the time being, real life interrupts.

    However, I will state one thing:

    I, lxxy, am an Anarchist. Now, don't let that scare you, because anarchy is the absence of direct governmental control. Politics, you see, is someone else's game--it's not yours, it's not mine, and it's only the game of those who choose to play.

    Here's the very definition of anarchy, for those who have been lead to believe something different from ISM propaganda:

    So here's a rather valid question, and I will appreciate all responses:

    How would you shape a government, and why?

    If you were Top Dawg, how would you run it?

    1. nicomp profile image56
      nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Since you are an anarchist, can I have all your stuff?

      1. lxxy profile image60
        lxxyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        I said anarchist, not communist. wink

        Your species decides to have a thing called ownership, so it's a game I must play until that concept changes.

        There is a transitional period, for sure.

        But you must understand that the time "before government," has never truly existed. You can say there was maybe..a "lawless west," but that was more like plenty of rustlers and gunslingers, not enough common folk who wanted to fight.

        Then again, Bonnie and Clyde were taken by a posse, with the help of community informants.

        Having no government is not to say you don't have a code of ethics, or morality. It's just the opposite--it peels everything back to where that's all you have. And if you're dealing with someone who doesn't even have that? Well, they probably won't last very long.

        1. onthewriteside profile image61
          onthewritesideposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Well said.

        2. ledefensetech profile image68
          ledefensetechposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          I don't know about the first part.  Post-Civil War a lot of the settlers were Southern soldiers trying to rebuild their lives.  After something like the Wilderness or Cold Harbor, I don't think a few cattle rustlers would have bothered them too much.  People did have to be more proactive about their defense, that's for sure, but that isn't a bad thing.

          One thing that worries me currently is the lack of tax revenue for law enforcement.  Departments aren't hiring and they've frozen wages, in many cases.  At the same time, quite a few of the crazies they locked up during the drug heyday of the 1980's are going to be released soon.  So we have an increase in the criminal population along with a decrease or stagnation of the law enforcement population.  That's going to cause problems in the future unless people become more proactive about their personal safety now.

    2. RKHenry profile image77
      RKHenryposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Without worker unions.wink

      1. profile image0
        Hack Retisposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        I like you already!

  2. Eaglekiwi profile image73
    Eaglekiwiposted 8 years ago

    With An Iron Fist

    Speak softly but carry a big stick ( Teddy Rosavelt)

    Thanks for the explanation Ixxy

    I personally like the idea of Coalition run Government,not that Im politically minded. I just prefer the ideas of many as opposed to 'One Party Thinking'

    Also If I was in Government I would create laws that involved the people more ,so in effect have less Government.
    Build Less Prisons, Prisonsers should be helping the economy by running farms , building furniture ,bring the education to them and make it compulsory!!
    Enforce Education ( and yes you can make people attend school)
    Revamp Welfare , No Work ,No Pay (everybody can do something , even if its babysitting ,or watering plants)
    Reduce taxes on necessities
    Increase taxes on luxury items (incl tobacco and alcohol)
    Build childcare facilities near factory's ( like in Asia) and make them modern and safe!
    Help and make available grants and loans to youre own citizens first ,others second.

  3. ledefensetech profile image68
    ledefensetechposted 8 years ago

    No government whatsoever. Collective farms let people starve, communist car factories only build the good cars for Party elite, and communist health care kills people.  In all three circumstances private companies can do better.  That pretty much holds across the board. 

    Any government sooner or later becomes a tyranny.

    1. lxxy profile image60
      lxxyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed. "Free Market" is a nice idea, and I hope your species can get a grip on it again. wink

      Hey WaMu, we don't think you're worth what you say...big government's gonna rip you a new one and sell you for much less than what you're worth.

      Etc., etc.

      As for your thoughts Eagle, I do appreciate them, too.

      However--as soon as you decide to build a pyramid, all the people supporting the people at the top is lost.

      Coalition governments don't work, they never will, imho.

  4. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    LOL Have to join a no government camp. smile Yet I am still scratching my head about how this could be implemented in reality...

  5. ledefensetech profile image68
    ledefensetechposted 8 years ago

    It takes a bit of explaining.  Minarchists want the government to run law and the military, basically.  However, government creeps.  Sooner or later it'll grab more than just that as powers of government.  See the history of the US for details.  We could run law and the military as companies and it might work.  It would, however, take a bit of explanation, but it could be done.

  6. Eaglekiwi profile image73
    Eaglekiwiposted 8 years ago

    At first I thought  No Governement sounds great!

    But on the other hand , when there was no governement way way back, there was also lawlessness and might was right , tyranny ruled for sure.
    So no , there needs to be some leadership with greater accountability , at the moment thats whats missing.

  7. ledefensetech profile image68
    ledefensetechposted 8 years ago

    How do you make people accountable in government?  Obama surely does as he wishes, he only takes the wishes of his "base" into account.  What it comes down to is do you believe people are basically good and can be trusted or do you not?  I believe most people are good and can be trusted.  Not only to work in their own self-interest but to see the advantages of cooperation and reciprocity.  That's why I believe that government is not necessary to ensure people play fair.  People just do it naturally when you let them.

  8. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    Yeah, I am on the same page with you here. What puzzles me is a transition period, and coexistence of states and state-free territories...

  9. ledefensetech profile image68
    ledefensetechposted 8 years ago

    The only historical examples I can think of concern the fall of empires and what comes out of those are things like serfdom and slavery.  On the other hand a much larger percentage of the population was illiterate and probably didn't know any better.  Today might be different. 

    You're right, states would see free areas as fresh meat and areas to expand in.  The free zones would have to have some mechanism to keep states from sending in the troops.  My vote is targeted assassination.  Target such leaders, when they get ready to pounce, and work your way down until you get to someone more reasonable. 

    I've often wondered why we just didn't punch Hitler's lights out, but then it would have been open season on all sorts of politicians.  Stalin comes to mind.  Sigh.

  10. ledefensetech profile image68
    ledefensetechposted 8 years ago

    What's keeping you from stealing now, nicomp?

  11. lxxy profile image60
    lxxyposted 8 years ago

    LDT, I'm with you on that. They are definitely not hiring many local law enforcement officers.

    But there is a reason..many reasons, actually. In california, for example, they'd rather spend money on politicians. Actually, that's probably the MO for any state.

    Are you speaking of druglords in 80s getting out? Otherwise, drug users in particular generally don't cause a problem. Depending on where they're moving to...you'll find that the war on drugs is over, and drugs won.

  12. ledefensetech profile image68
    ledefensetechposted 8 years ago

    You don't need to tell me that, that war was lost before it began.  But the 80's were notorious for locking up drug abusers and when you put those people in a prison, well if they weren't criminals before, they are now.  Given the choice between going to prison and suicide by cop, I'd have to sit down and think about that for a while.  So either getting out is a bad thing. 

    Yeah, CA has decided that they're not going to track "nonviolent" offenders after they get paroled.  Do you really think they're not going to go back to a life of crime.  It's hard to get a job as a felon, you'll always have that hanging over your head.  We're on course for an explosion in crime statistics over the next few years.

  13. Davinagirl3 profile image61
    Davinagirl3posted 8 years ago

    I wouldn't dream of accepting that type of responsibility.  To be a world leader requires more megalomania than I have... just a smidge.