Next type of government

[magomago]

Someone (here obviously) messed up the anarcho-capitalism link Instead of talking about stuff it just says

Jump to: navigation, search

anarchocapitalism cannot exist because the two constituent philosophies some have tried to ham-handedly link together are in fundamental opposition to each other.

Bah let the others read it. Is there a way to retreive an old cache? Or alter Wikipedia someone played with it so they can restore an older version?

 

[judasmachine]

Is this what you are looking for?

from wiki...
Anarcho-capitalism is a philosophy based on the idea of individual sovereignty, and a prohibition against initiatory coercion and fraud. It sees the only just basis for law as arising from private property norms and an unlimited right of contract between sovereign individuals. From this basis, anarcho-capitalism rejects the state as an unjustified monopolist and aggressor against sovereign individuals, and embraces anti-statist laissez-faire capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists would aim to protect individual liberty and property by replacing a government monopoly, which is involuntarily funded through taxation, with private, competing businesses.

The philosophy embraces stateless capitalism as one of its foundational principles. The first well-known version of anarcho-capitalism to identify itself thus was developed by economists of the Austrian School and libertarians Murray Rothbard and Walter Block in the mid-20th century, as an attempted synthesis of Austrian School economics, classical liberalism and 19th-century American individualist anarchism. While Rothbard bases his philosophy on natural law, others, such as David Friedman, take a pragmatic consequentialist approach by arguing that anarcho-capitalism should be implemented because such a system would have consequences superior to alternatives.

Because of this embrace of capitalism, there is considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists and other anarchists, who see the rejection of capitalism as being just as essential to anarchist philosophy as rejection of the state. Many anarcho-capitalists believe that much of the source of dispute is a definitional problem, with the classical anarchists using the term "capitalism" in reference to state capitalism, where government grants businesses monopoly rights and special privileges over individuals ? something anarcho-capitalists oppose. In contrast, most anarchists believe the dispute over more than a definition, as they hold that profit is exploitative for a number of reasons. Despite this tension, some anarcho-capitalists see their philosophy as evolving from the American individualist anarchism tradition that includes classical liberal thinkers such as Lysander Spooner.

Anarcho-capitalism can be considered a radical development of classical liberalism. Its grounding in liberalism stems from Gustave de Molinari. Many proponents of anarcho-capitalism, including Rothbard, argue that Molinari was the first anarcho-capitalist. However, Rothbard admitted that "Molinari did not use the terminology, and probably would have balked at the name" anarcho-capitalist. Nonetheless, Molinari did argue for a free market, privatization of security, and did not oppose profit. His thoughts were influential on Rothbard and his contemporaries.

 

[WiseOldDude]

Police state, witch trials, religious persecution, the return of "blue laws" (for you youngsters that don't remember blue laws, nothing can open on Sundays, no stores, no movies, etc), and of course they will have to reinstate the draft because not enough of these Islamic hating Christians beating the war drums have the guts to sign up and fight, as the Religious Crusades will wage on for many years, and we will still be in Iraq.

 

[Dissipate]

In the future there will be no more 'government.' Ruling people will become too expensive.

 

[Vic]

The next forum of government will be YET another return to the rule of rational law. As has been tried but foiled for millenia.

In 429 BC, Pericles of Athens declared:
"Our form of government does not enter into rivalry with the institutions of others. We do not copy our neighbors, but are an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few. But while the law secures equal justice to all alike in their private disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognized; and when any citizen is in any distinguished, he is preferred to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit. Neither is poverty a bar, but a man may benefit his country whatever the obscurity of his condition. There is no exclusiveness in our public life, and in our private intercourse we are not suspicious of one another, nor angry with our neighbor if he does what he likes."

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
In the future there will be no more 'government.' Ruling people will become too expensive.

As long as there is someone willing to follow and someone looking to lead there will always be government.

 

[irwincur]

replace our democratic system in the future?

WE ARE A F*CKING REPUBLIC.

Why do people have a hard time with this. This form of government dates back to ancient Greece - it is not going anywhere and there are not many varieties of it. If anything, America will devolve into a worthless Social Democracy. Something similar to the soon to be bankrupt European governments.

Live and learn people. Our future is right in front of us and more than half are too stupid to see it.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: Dissipate
In the future there will be no more 'government.' Ruling people will become too expensive.

As long as there is someone willing to follow and someone looking to lead there will always be government.

Not really. You can have plenty of people willing to follow and plenty of people willing to lead. Those leaders will be relegated to only leading those who consent, however. So yes, there might be a 'government' in the future that operates on unanimous consent, perhaps in a private community.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: irwincur

replace our democratic system in the future?

WE ARE A F*CKING REPUBLIC.

Why do people have a hard time with this. This form of government dates back to ancient Greece - it is not going anywhere and there are not many varieties of it. If anything, America will devolve into a worthless Social Democracy. Something similar to the soon to be bankrupt European governments.

Live and learn people. Our future is right in front of us and more than half are too stupid to see it.

What are you talking about? The U.S. government has already devolved into a socialist mass franchise democracy.

When I mean socialism, I mean conservative socialism (which includes subsidies for big business and the warfare state) and social democratic socialism (which includes wealth distribution schemes for the 'poor').

 

[piasabird]

I could imagine a giant computer that runs the country based on the latest poll and marketing information.

 

[Genx87]

religious persecution

open up any paper and you will see this from the secularists in this country.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I could imagine a giant computer that runs the country based on the latest poll and marketing information.

Strangely I kind of agree with you.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: envy me
Throughout history many forms of government have been created. Does anyone think that there will be a new type created to replace our democratic system in the future?

Not really... democracy is considered now the most advanced government form and is a couple of milleniums old...

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: irwincur

replace our democratic system in the future?

WE ARE A F*CKING REPUBLIC.

Why do people have a hard time with this. This form of government dates back to ancient Greece - it is not going anywhere and there are not many varieties of it. If anything, America will devolve into a worthless Social Democracy. Something similar to the soon to be bankrupt European governments.

Live and learn people. Our future is right in front of us and more than half are too stupid to see it.

We are on our way to become an Imperialistic Government, (the Neocon dream)

Personally, I'm hoping for "SERVICE = CITIZENSHIP"

 

[Votingisanillusion]

Originally posted by: envy me

In my opinion, the best type of government would be as follows:

A leader is elected, and he would be responsible for all foreign relations for our country. All of the laws that were passed in our country would be voted on by the people, and not the senate or house leader, that way, people could make decisions for themselves and there would be no contraversy over leaders being bribed/blackmailed. And based on what the people voted, our leader could dictate foreign policy.

This will probably never happen but I think it would be the best type of government only for the reason that the people get to decide on critical issues and not the people that are already in office.

I agree. Direct democracy is true democracy. With independant informations sources on the internet, it can be viable. In such a system, it would be much more difficult for the powers that be to manipulate people and start wars. Sooner or later, the powers that be would cease to be.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
In the United States, I expect to see a Christian Theocracy in the next 20 years.

Only problem with that is that the Christians tend to be conservative and they tend to uphold the Constitution.

Given that the liberals are in control of the media, education, and the major cities (brilliant move on their part) I would expect to see Fascism within the next 20 years in the United States.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: irwincur

replace our democratic system in the future?

WE ARE A F*CKING REPUBLIC.

Why do people have a hard time with this. This form of government dates back to ancient Greece - it is not going anywhere and there are not many varieties of it. If anything, America will devolve into a worthless Social Democracy. Something similar to the soon to be bankrupt European governments.

Live and learn people. Our future is right in front of us and more than half are too stupid to see it.

Good language. Yep. hmm, hmm.

For the record we are a Democratic Republic. Not a Republic.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Given that the liberals are in control of the media, education, and the major cities (brilliant move on their part) I would expect to see Fascism within the next 20 years in the United States.

LMAO

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Given that the liberals are in control of the media, education, and the major cities (brilliant move on their part) I would expect to see Fascism within the next 20 years in the United States.

LMAO

WTF is he talking about? The Christians are forming a nanny state as we speak. Oh and Fascism is the extreme right wing movement. Commumism is the extreme left wing movement.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
In the United States, I expect to see a Christian Theocracy in the next 20 years.

Theocracies usually result as a backlash to persecution. (i.e. puritans) If the christian bashing escalates at its current rate, we'll have a theocracy in a lot less than 20 years.

Think thats far fetched? Just look at how many times people in this forum have suggested legislating what people can and cant do based on thier relilgion. The persecution has already begun.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Given that the liberals are in control of the media, education, and the major cities (brilliant move on their part) I would expect to see Fascism within the next 20 years in the United States.

LMAO

WTF is he talking about? The Christians are forming a nanny state as we speak. Oh and Fascism is the extreme right wing movement. Commumism is the extreme left wing movement.

Fascism is control of the people by the Government and large businesses rather than by the Government alone. The only facist party we have seen on a major scale was the National Socialist party.

Since you mention nanny state are you accusing Senator "it takes a village" Clinton other wise known as Senator "Government should control ll health care" Clinton as being a right wing extremist Christian?

 

[Meuge]

Healthcare is in shambles. Take it from someone who is neck-deep in it. The insurance companies are not accountable to anyone but themselves, and they simply no longer pay...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion

Originally posted by: envy me
In my opinion, the best type of government would be as follows:

A leader is elected, and he would be responsible for all foreign relations for our country. All of the laws that were passed in our country would be voted on by the people, and not the senate or house leader, that way, people could make decisions for themselves and there would be no contraversy over leaders being bribed/blackmailed. And based on what the people voted, our leader could dictate foreign policy.

This will probably never happen but I think it would be the best type of government only for the reason that the people get to decide on critical issues and not the people that are already in office.

I agree. Direct democracy is true democracy. With independant informations sources on the internet, it can be viable. In such a system, it would be much more difficult for the powers that be to manipulate people and start wars. Sooner or later, the powers that be would cease to be.

Actually, direct democracy has been proven throughout history to always have the exact opposite effect, descending inevitably into mob rule, tyranny of the majority, excessive entitlement, corruption, and warfare, collapsing finally into national bankruptcy, dictatorship, and the "machine state."

It's not that the people are unable to rule themselves. Far from it. It's just that the only government that is capable of being successful is one that is limited by the rule of law (and in this, I mean the rule of law that is just and fair, protecting equally the lives, property, and interests of all individuals). Without such limitation, the people are just as capable of being tyrannical, cruel, irrational, wasteful, and warlike as the worst dictator. The people become the new "powers that be," same as the old "powers that be." No matter how well-informed, as (just like with an irrational monarch) decisions will always be made with emotion as opposed to rational thought.
What we see happening in our government today is proof of this. The problem is not that we are not a direct democracy, but that we ARE. It's not what our country was founded to be, but it is what we have become. In consequence, our government exists today solely to carry out 2 functions: to pander to the lowest common denominator of the people and to dole out the public monies.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Given that the liberals are in control of the media, education, and the major cities (brilliant move on their part) I would expect to see Fascism within the next 20 years in the United States.

LMAO

WTF is he talking about? The Christians are forming a nanny state as we speak. Oh and Fascism is the extreme right wing movement. Commumism is the extreme left wing movement.

Fascism is control of the people by the Government and large businesses rather than by the Government alone. The only facist party we have seen on a major scale was the National Socialist party.

Since you mention nanny state are you accusing Senator "it takes a village" Clinton other wise known as Senator "Government should control ll health care" Clinton as being a right wing extremist Christian?

I'm accusing them all of forwarding authoritarian agendas. The left of overbearing socialism, and the right of overbearing fascism. The Nazis may have called themselves socialists, but they were not. Wiki: Fascism