"The govornment has two jobs, to protect and serve."
Govornments, expecialy democrasys, are there only to protect the citizans, such as with an army and police force, and to serve, with post offices, hospitals, ect.
That, is not a government. It is simply there as a figurehead, while chaos can ensue and they can sit back and claim what little they have already.
Governments have power over the land they rule, so being small, and staying out of the way is not a form of government, but a fake power-head, designed to give the illusions of a head of state.
Drace is a Marxist, which calls for a classless, stateless society. I'm personally an Anarcho-Collectivist which is similar to Marxism, but we believe in different paths to Anarchy, and differ in the politics of wages.
Drace is a Marxist, which calls for a classless, stateless society. I'm personally an Anarcho-Collectivist which is similar to Marxism, but we believe in different paths to Anarchy, and differ in the politics of wages.
Actually I like to think of myself more of an anarchist now even if I agree with Marx on many things.
Its much better than being labeled a communist and having to go though the trouble of defending the Soviet Union, Mao, Castro, etc...
"Im a communist." "OH WHAT? COMMUNISM HAS KILLED OVER A 100 million people!" versus "Im an anarchist" "Oh? How do you think we can function without a government"?
Anyway, back to the question.
Government's in rule of the few are naturally plutocratic as well as naturally violent, competitive, and imperialist. Representative government is not at all democratic. Not only because of the various factors making elections useless (image politics, mass media, lobbying, propaganda, etc) but instead the natural characteristic of a state which plays as an active power on the battlefield of the global map in search of wealth and expansion.
The only democratic form of organization is direct democracy and voluntary association.
I'm personally an Anarcho-Collectivist which is similar to Marxism, but we believe in different paths to Anarchy, and differ in the politics of wages.
Are you a mutualist or a syndicalist?
If i believed a society like that could function, I'd be an anarcho individualist, specifically a nihilist. Stirner's work the Ego and his Own actually has some pretty compelling ideas.
As of now though, I class myself as a social liberal, or a democratic socialist depending on the way you want to look at it. I believe in a small state socially, but I agree with Rawls that you can't ever attain self realisation without the material wealth to do so, which s why I advocate a relatively large state economically, to distribute wealgth fairly.
I think that Anarchy (unfortunately) doesn't work.
The only democratic form of organization is direct democracy
I think so, too. The government should do what the people want. It must protect and serve them. I also think that it must give the guidelines for the economy. The social market economy is so far the best economy form (I think). Free market economy sucks and command economy doesn't work.
I would rather the government be able to give less to the people than the people themselves. I support a small government.
If a government didn't exist, then I don't see how people will live on in such society. Without a government, those who control the police force controls the people, them or some sort of mafia.
There're really equal problems with having too small or too large of a government. Too large, it becomes a corrupt bureaucracy, and too small, it loses all authority and would have less room for elected officials, thus making it even less democratic. Anarchy would be the best if all the people in the world were anarchist - however, that is not the case, and eventually some sort of leader would come forward and the anarchy would no longer be so. Communism has similar flaws with people wanting to have some sort of authority.
I personally agree with Winston Churchill on the issue.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other ones."
In between small and medium. Enough to maintain infrastructure, police, military, etc. I don't want more than we need, but I still want a little to help grow in some social areas. Anymore than we need rarely ends well. The bigger the government, the faster the collapse. And all governments collapse, one way or another. Cycles and all that.
Anarchy is out of the question because it wont last it is just a setup for the most powerful group to set there own gov. up, go. in my opinion is bad no matter what, it is a necessary evil. Though this "evil" is better than what faces us if it isn't there, like paying the bully not to hit you is bad, but doesn't compare to what he might do if you don't, in simplest terms.
If a government didn't exist, then I don't see how people will live on in such society. Without a government, those who control the police force controls the people, them or some sort of mafia.
? The police force is now in the control of the men men in power, if anything a more democratic control over the police force would be better.
No government doesn't equal no organization.
Anarchy is out of the question because it wont last it is just a setup for the most powerful group to set there own gov. up, go.
And what allows someone to just make up a government? What "owerful group"?
As if the government collapsing would mean everyone suddently turns on each other and everyone becomes animals...
