Is like to see another empire or commonwealth
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Absolutely not.
No, that will never happen.
Wars will end via incentives that include self preservation at their core, not via any homogenous governmental rule or whatever 'uniting' looks like.
M
member 3289
Guest
Right-leaning communuty - Will you finally admit that trickle-down economics simply doesn't fucking work?
Never is a strong word. It's not likely to happen without some sort of game changer, but I wouldn't say never.
M
member 3289
Guest
I believe the goal exists, and is what's being strived for by the elite.
I consider myself Libertarian for lack of thorough knowledge of all twenty trillion terms.
Some sort of anarchy.
No government made by man will ever bring peace, which is what I believe most people want whoever they are.
Anarchy seems the most pure, and misunderstood.
Careful, there's good respectful discussion going on everywhere and we don't want to cross lines.
My reputation as a thread-dumper is on the line.
If Anarchy is misunderstood, can you explain what you mean by it? How would Anarchy work as a governmental form?
M
member 3289
Guest
Keep your religion to yourself and stop trying to use it to influence government. We are officially a secular country.
When you (right wingers) do that, I'll be a little more respectful.
I think people generally accept the negative connotations that are attached to it, like chaos. It's actually people governing themselves, from what I understand.
But again, I believe man is inherently evil, so no form of "governing" will ever bring peace. Everything is just a lesser of the evil's from someone's perspective.
How would it work? Do small communities have to defend themselves from other small communities?
I think I'll use you in my upcoming book.
And will NOT give you royalties.
I think they would, but if they had to, that implies governing again, and we're off to the races for 10,000 years fighting over how government is needed and which is best.
I like American Indians. Bad stuff happened, but collectively, they never nuked anyone, or themselves.
Some may call them lesser, or stupid genetically.
I think the opposite is true.
Is there more than one type of anarchy?
American Indians still governed themselves. They also fought wars against other tribes. They never nuked anyone, because they couldn't. Do you just want to return to a nomadic hunter gatherer lifestyle? With no modern tools?
You could drop your fancy talk of incentives and just say what it is: fear. That's ok though.
Some questions are opening up with that:
Does that mean you want there to be a situation where the US is not the only superpower? Shouldn't you totally be for an United Europe then?
Or the US gets split into parts so a more balanced situation is achieved?
Are you for everyone having nuclear weapons ready to destroy everyone else? Seems like that is the closest we can get to the incentives you talk about.
Or is this really a situation where you want some "neutral" force to have the power to punish everyone that gets out of line? That wouldn't be far away from some sort of global government then though.
Do you want a system kinda like a market where people can freely decide in which country they want to live, and the countries have to actually create a good environment for people?
(careful, coz that sounds too much like the EU if you say that is a good idea)
Again, there is no stopping what will be.
There is no return to or government that will bring peace.
Like the T-800 said, "It's in your nature to destroy yourselves"
I'm asking you about how your ideal government, Anarchy, would work. Can you explain how it works to me?
What should I google?
The answer is no anyway. I gotta say its interesting that you bring up Anarchy, since I was always under the impression it is a very left-wing ideology.
But you are correct that Anomie and Anarchy are often wrongly seen as one and the same.
M
member 3289
Guest
One tribe commonly sold out another to the "enemy" white man.
Also, as soon as they acquired guns, they started using them, despite the fact they had never "shot" anyone before (with a gun).
Is anyone really naive enough to believe they wouldn't use nukes if a) they had them and b) it was in their collective self-interest?