I think most people will agree, a little anarchy is necessary to keep those in power in check, it's total anarchy that's a problem.
If you want a government that works we basically need to switch to an Intellocracy or Communism as it is meant to be and not what greedy humans turned it into. Anarchy is not the answer unless you want mass genocide of the idiots and douche-bags in this country followed by thousands of people attempting to re-create an actual government.
Personally I would be 100% for an Intellocracy where your social status and political sway depended on intelligence and not on how well you can sway the average dumb American to believe your empty promises. Being a good speaker does not always make you a good ruler, want a good example? Go look at King George VI. Or on the other end of the spectrum, look at Obama.
Anarchy is basically the same.
You know what would also be a great idea if humans were good-natured? Democracy. Or theocracy. Or anything ever. Once the people are being rational and not impaired by their instincts, it doesn't matter what type of government it is. It really doesn't.
The assumptions required to support your outcome are too ridiculous to actually exist and it really baffles me how people think that it could work.
Global Moderator | Forum Guidelines
4 letters.... 1 word.... 4chan. That's anarchy.
---------- Post added 2012-04-14 at 02:50 AM ----------
This topic is nonsense. The court system being privatized. That would keep the corruption out... As if I wouldn't pay a judge not to put me in prison. Monopolies would flourish. I don't even have to go on.
Anarchy might have been able to sustain itself as shown in Iceland in the past but in today's society, it would never work. The world has essentially gone crazy. See the Astrodome I believe it was after Hurricane Katrina. That's anarchy in the modern world.
And what laws would these courts be arbitrating in a lawless anarchy? If laws are created by some group, how is that different than a government? What if you can't afford a trial? What are the enforcement mechanisms to make sure that the judge and jury are fair and impartial? What if a volunteer jurist is someone with a grudge against you? Who would pay the "salary" of a paid jurist? What if a jurist doesn't need the pens you make but the other guy can afford to give him 100 chickens? What if the other party in your trial is some huge corporation that dumped poisonous chemicals into your water supply? Who decides what constitutes fair environmental laws (assuming that your lawless society would have environmental laws)? How do you, with no science background, go about proving that your goats are dead because of something this company dumped into the ground?"Well what about courts! For crimes such as murder, theft, or fraud!" Privately run courts would exist, where the defendants and prosecutors would mutually agree to attend, so as to deter corruption. There could be 1 juror or 100, based on a voluntary or salary system. It may not be the absolute perfect system, but is our current one better? Just look at some of the corruption that is going on!
And yes, I read your entire post.
It'd help certain things, but sustaining it would be difficult. Keeping order in particular would be difficult without a policing force, and that requires someone in charge of that police force, who could take over and make it a dictatorship if there weren't checks to keep him from doing so...
It's impractical in the long term, but I see what you're saying about how it'd cut a lot of wastefulness in getting things done.
OP, if I completely disregard any of my own knowledge on the subject and use what you say as law in this thread... you still have to understand that people accustomed to a certain way of things will not likely be enthused about having their world thrown around even if it yields positive results in the long run. If a culture springs up and takes up this way of thinking and governing, then it may be sustainable to a point. However, with the way of things in this world as it is there is no feasible way to get people to buy into it. All it takes is a small resistance to your cause if they have any real power, and then it'll turn for the worse.
Many MANY types of governing are great in theory, on paper, or in your mind with a limited world view but in order to get it established there would likely be many concessions made (in order to actually attain a high level of buy-in) that would run counter to the underlying belief systems that back the idea. The biggest things that come into play have been listed out all over this thread by replies. Take everyone that's posted in this thread and increase their representation exponentially (including yourself) and then imagine trying to establish this style of governing while meeting this proportional resistance. Good idea? Maybe. Feasible? So very unlikely.
You know, I'm just a 20 year old middle class American with limited life experience, but this is my take on this subject. I like government, and this is why.
I've never been in a serious fight in my life. I've never had a gun pointed at me. I've never had a tank roll down my street and blow up part of my neighborhood. I've never had anything stolen from me. I have been free to do what I want for my entire life.
None of that is guaranteed to still be true after a governmental upheaval of any kind. My life has been very peaceful, and I like that. It's nice to know that I don't have to fight for my life and my possessions every day.
If Goku's power level increases at the same rate till the end of DBGT as it does till the end of the Frieza saga, as a SS4 Goku would have a PL of roughly 939 Quinoctogintillion. For reference that is a 260 digit number. A PL of 14,600 is required to destroy an earth sized planet. There are about 2 nonillion earths worth of mass in the universe. That means SS4 Goku can destroy the universe about 32 Octosexagintillion times over. There's a reason they made Goku a god at the end of GT.
You're assuming everyone would turn into carebears.... that would not be the case in an anarchist state.
---------- Post added 2012-04-13 at 11:34 PM ----------
Last edited by Duravian; 2012-04-14 at 06:40 AM.
"The Thread Ender" - No seriously, whenever I enter a thread, I end it. Wtf guys, is it something I said?