Best form of government?

[OldTrees]

The biggest problem with communism is that there has always been a dictator sitting at the top benefiting off of the sweat of others.

"Best form of government" is kind of an of an oxymoron because government implies oppression and how is oppression good at all?

I am opposed to all things oppressive, so naturally I am partial to the anarchist model. It's the only model that represents true democracy and focuses on the individuals needs.

until somebody amasses enough power to oppress everyone else.

And how do you propose that would happen?

without a government to prevent monopolies, every business eventually grows into a monopoly and can charge whatever they want because you have no other options.  not a big deal when it comes to video games, minor invonvinience when it comes to cable companies, pretty big deal if it happens to food or medicine.

I find that strange considering there would be no companies, or even currency for that matter. You seem to be a bit confused about what it means to anarchist. Anarchy is not capitalism. In fact, anarchy is more like the antithesis to capitalism.

no one can do EVERYTHING. no matter how anarchistic your society, eventually some form of trade will be required, and currency is just a way to standardize trade. from there, its just a short step to marketplaces, and then companies.

First of all, trading is not necessarily required. That is heavily dependent on the resources that are available to that specific community. Also, trade doesn't have to use currency, that's just how our current capitalist societies do it and that is clearly a broken system. Trade can simply be goods we have surplus of for other goods that we don't have much of. Also, I just don't see the motivation to try and create a "company" in an anarchist society...What would the point be and how would one achieve it?

the barter system can only go so far though.  its a very short step from "ill give you two eggs for a beer" to "i'll give you two eggs tomorrow for a beer today" currency is just shorthand for delayed exchange.  a company is a bigger step, but still easy to predict. markets are a very small step, people decide on a day a week to show up with everything they have a surplus of and trade, and eventually someone figure out how to game the system, at which point theyll have far more surplus than anyone else.

all this ignore the most glaring problem of the fact that youd have a bunch of nutjobs that go around shooting people for their "surpluses"

You two are talking past each other.
Anarchism (lack of hierarchy, aka lack of government or capitalism) is different than An-archy (lack of rulers, aka lack of government)
No currency is needed or would arise inside Anarchism because that system prohibits private ownership of capital.

[Xegaton]

The biggest problem with communism is that there has always been a dictator sitting at the top benefiting off of the sweat of others.

"Best form of government" is kind of an of an oxymoron because government implies oppression and how is oppression good at all?

I am opposed to all things oppressive, so naturally I am partial to the anarchist model. It's the only model that represents true democracy and focuses on the individuals needs.

until somebody amasses enough power to oppress everyone else.

And how do you propose that would happen?

without a government to prevent monopolies, every business eventually grows into a monopoly and can charge whatever they want because you have no other options.  not a big deal when it comes to video games, minor invonvinience when it comes to cable companies, pretty big deal if it happens to food or medicine.

I find that strange considering there would be no companies, or even currency for that matter. You seem to be a bit confused about what it means to anarchist. Anarchy is not capitalism. In fact, anarchy is more like the antithesis to capitalism.

no one can do EVERYTHING. no matter how anarchistic your society, eventually some form of trade will be required, and currency is just a way to standardize trade. from there, its just a short step to marketplaces, and then companies.

First of all, trading is not necessarily required. That is heavily dependent on the resources that are available to that specific community. Also, trade doesn't have to use currency, that's just how our current capitalist societies do it and that is clearly a broken system. Trade can simply be goods we have surplus of for other goods that we don't have much of. Also, I just don't see the motivation to try and create a "company" in an anarchist society...What would the point be and how would one achieve it?

the barter system can only go so far though.  its a very short step from "ill give you two eggs for a beer" to "i'll give you two eggs tomorrow for a beer today" currency is just shorthand for delayed exchange.  a company is a bigger step, but still easy to predict. markets are a very small step, people decide on a day a week to show up with everything they have a surplus of and trade, and eventually someone figure out how to game the system, at which point theyll have far more surplus than anyone else.

all this ignore the most glaring problem of the fact that youd have a bunch of nutjobs that go around shooting people for their "surpluses"

You two are talking past each other.
Anarchism (lack of hierarchy, aka lack of government or capitalism) is different than An-archy (lack of rulers, aka lack of government)
No currency is needed or would arise inside Anarchism because that system prohibits private ownership of capital.

I don't necessarily agree that Anarchy and Anarchism are two different structures, but I was just about to go into how there would be no gain in stockpiling surplus because there would be no private ownership of capital.

[Xegaton]

That doesn't answer the question. Explaining time differences and descriptions means nothing.

Also, I am pretty sure Laozi lived after confucious.

It was not my intention to answer the question.

I choose not to judge opinions; but I would like to facilitate the forming of well-informed opinions by providing facts and tentative interpretations, and pointing out what I perceive to be misinformation where appropriate. Whether these interpretations and perceptions are in agreement with yours, however, is your choice to make.

This position is actually far from politically 'meaningless'. It is associated with some forms of anarchism (albeit not necessarily 'classical' anarchism), and pluralist ideologies in general.

The statement may 'mean nothing' to you, but that perhaps reveals more about you than the statement.

Back to Laozi:

Most sources tend to suggest that Laozi lived (if he lived at all) in the same period as Confucius. Zhuangzi (the 'other' Taoist, as I sometimes like to call him), for example, portrays Laozi and Confucius as contemporaries, with Confucius taking after Laozi. Shiji also describe scenarios in which Confucius and Laozi meet physically (and have interesting conversations). I think the amount of material citing Laozi as Confucius's contemporary or as coming before Confucius far outweighs the amount of material citing the opposite.

However, Confucianism is certainly the first to be actively taught, institutionalized, and formally adopted as a political system.

This may be of interest to some anarchists, who suggest that anarchism is the 'natural' form of (non)governance, and is a unique ideology in that, for anarchists, the theory stems from practice, as opposed to other ideologies, where the theory comes first on paper, then put into practice.

In fact, that may be the one key difference between classical anarchism and communism.

A lot of anarchism does indeed stem from practice, but it would be a shame to overlook that vast amount of anarchist philosophy that has been written and in some cases shaped more complex aspects of anarchist thought. When I look at communism and other ideologies, there are two big flaws that I immediately see. The first, is that they always feel the need to have a dictator, a king, or some other figure sitting on top living better than everyone else. The second, is their inability to adapt to change, whereas anarchism is always growing and thus, is always changing. I feel that a lot of systems find it very hard to rewrite their "rules," even when they cease to be needed or effective.

[russianspy1234]

That doesn't answer the question. Explaining time differences and descriptions means nothing.

Also, I am pretty sure Laozi lived after confucious.

It was not my intention to answer the question.

I choose not to judge opinions; but I would like to facilitate the forming of well-informed opinions by providing facts and tentative interpretations, and pointing out what I perceive to be misinformation where appropriate. Whether these interpretations and perceptions are in agreement with yours, however, is your choice to make.

This position is actually far from politically 'meaningless'. It is associated with some forms of anarchism (albeit not necessarily 'classical' anarchism), and pluralist ideologies in general.

The statement may 'mean nothing' to you, but that perhaps reveals more about you than the statement.

Back to Laozi:

Most sources tend to suggest that Laozi lived (if he lived at all) in the same period as Confucius. Zhuangzi (the 'other' Taoist, as I sometimes like to call him), for example, portrays Laozi and Confucius as contemporaries, with Confucius taking after Laozi. Shiji also describe scenarios in which Confucius and Laozi meet physically (and have interesting conversations). I think the amount of material citing Laozi as Confucius's contemporary or as coming before Confucius far outweighs the amount of material citing the opposite.

However, Confucianism is certainly the first to be actively taught, institutionalized, and formally adopted as a political system.

This may be of interest to some anarchists, who suggest that anarchism is the 'natural' form of (non)governance, and is a unique ideology in that, for anarchists, the theory stems from practice, as opposed to other ideologies, where the theory comes first on paper, then put into practice.

In fact, that may be the one key difference between classical anarchism and communism.

A lot of anarchism does indeed stem from practice, but it would be a shame to overlook that vast amount of anarchist philosophy that has been written and in some cases shaped more complex aspects of anarchist thought. When I look at communism and other ideologies, there are two big flaws that I immediately see. The first, is that they always feel the need to have a dictator, a king, or some other figure sitting on top living better than everyone else. The second, is their inability to adapt to change, whereas anarchism is always growing and thus, is always changing. I feel that a lot of systems find it very hard to rewrite their "rules," even when they cease to be needed or effective.

communism does not require a dictator or king at the top.  in fact, true communism would preclude such a position

[Xegaton]

That doesn't answer the question. Explaining time differences and descriptions means nothing.

Also, I am pretty sure Laozi lived after confucious.

It was not my intention to answer the question.

I choose not to judge opinions; but I would like to facilitate the forming of well-informed opinions by providing facts and tentative interpretations, and pointing out what I perceive to be misinformation where appropriate. Whether these interpretations and perceptions are in agreement with yours, however, is your choice to make.

This position is actually far from politically 'meaningless'. It is associated with some forms of anarchism (albeit not necessarily 'classical' anarchism), and pluralist ideologies in general.

The statement may 'mean nothing' to you, but that perhaps reveals more about you than the statement.

Back to Laozi:

Most sources tend to suggest that Laozi lived (if he lived at all) in the same period as Confucius. Zhuangzi (the 'other' Taoist, as I sometimes like to call him), for example, portrays Laozi and Confucius as contemporaries, with Confucius taking after Laozi. Shiji also describe scenarios in which Confucius and Laozi meet physically (and have interesting conversations). I think the amount of material citing Laozi as Confucius's contemporary or as coming before Confucius far outweighs the amount of material citing the opposite.

However, Confucianism is certainly the first to be actively taught, institutionalized, and formally adopted as a political system.

This may be of interest to some anarchists, who suggest that anarchism is the 'natural' form of (non)governance, and is a unique ideology in that, for anarchists, the theory stems from practice, as opposed to other ideologies, where the theory comes first on paper, then put into practice.

In fact, that may be the one key difference between classical anarchism and communism.

A lot of anarchism does indeed stem from practice, but it would be a shame to overlook that vast amount of anarchist philosophy that has been written and in some cases shaped more complex aspects of anarchist thought. When I look at communism and other ideologies, there are two big flaws that I immediately see. The first, is that they always feel the need to have a dictator, a king, or some other figure sitting on top living better than everyone else. The second, is their inability to adapt to change, whereas anarchism is always growing and thus, is always changing. I feel that a lot of systems find it very hard to rewrite their "rules," even when they cease to be needed or effective.

communism does not require a dictator or king at the top.  in fact, true communism would preclude such a position

Strange, it sounds like you are speaking of anarchist-communism. Perhaps the work of Peter Kropotkin? The Conquest of Bread was one of the first books I read on anarchist philosophy.

[russianspy1234]

That doesn't answer the question. Explaining time differences and descriptions means nothing.

Also, I am pretty sure Laozi lived after confucious.

It was not my intention to answer the question.

I choose not to judge opinions; but I would like to facilitate the forming of well-informed opinions by providing facts and tentative interpretations, and pointing out what I perceive to be misinformation where appropriate. Whether these interpretations and perceptions are in agreement with yours, however, is your choice to make.

This position is actually far from politically 'meaningless'. It is associated with some forms of anarchism (albeit not necessarily 'classical' anarchism), and pluralist ideologies in general.

The statement may 'mean nothing' to you, but that perhaps reveals more about you than the statement.

Back to Laozi:

Most sources tend to suggest that Laozi lived (if he lived at all) in the same period as Confucius. Zhuangzi (the 'other' Taoist, as I sometimes like to call him), for example, portrays Laozi and Confucius as contemporaries, with Confucius taking after Laozi. Shiji also describe scenarios in which Confucius and Laozi meet physically (and have interesting conversations). I think the amount of material citing Laozi as Confucius's contemporary or as coming before Confucius far outweighs the amount of material citing the opposite.

However, Confucianism is certainly the first to be actively taught, institutionalized, and formally adopted as a political system.

This may be of interest to some anarchists, who suggest that anarchism is the 'natural' form of (non)governance, and is a unique ideology in that, for anarchists, the theory stems from practice, as opposed to other ideologies, where the theory comes first on paper, then put into practice.

In fact, that may be the one key difference between classical anarchism and communism.

A lot of anarchism does indeed stem from practice, but it would be a shame to overlook that vast amount of anarchist philosophy that has been written and in some cases shaped more complex aspects of anarchist thought. When I look at communism and other ideologies, there are two big flaws that I immediately see. The first, is that they always feel the need to have a dictator, a king, or some other figure sitting on top living better than everyone else. The second, is their inability to adapt to change, whereas anarchism is always growing and thus, is always changing. I feel that a lot of systems find it very hard to rewrite their "rules," even when they cease to be needed or effective.

communism does not require a dictator or king at the top.  in fact, true communism would preclude such a position

Strange, it sounds like you are speaking of anarchist-communism. Perhaps the work of Peter Kropotkin? The Conquest of Bread was one of the first books I read on anarchist philosophy.

communism presupposes everyone being equal, which having a dictator kind of contradicts.

[Xegaton]

That doesn't answer the question. Explaining time differences and descriptions means nothing.

Also, I am pretty sure Laozi lived after confucious.

It was not my intention to answer the question.

I choose not to judge opinions; but I would like to facilitate the forming of well-informed opinions by providing facts and tentative interpretations, and pointing out what I perceive to be misinformation where appropriate. Whether these interpretations and perceptions are in agreement with yours, however, is your choice to make.

This position is actually far from politically 'meaningless'. It is associated with some forms of anarchism (albeit not necessarily 'classical' anarchism), and pluralist ideologies in general.

The statement may 'mean nothing' to you, but that perhaps reveals more about you than the statement.

Back to Laozi:

Most sources tend to suggest that Laozi lived (if he lived at all) in the same period as Confucius. Zhuangzi (the 'other' Taoist, as I sometimes like to call him), for example, portrays Laozi and Confucius as contemporaries, with Confucius taking after Laozi. Shiji also describe scenarios in which Confucius and Laozi meet physically (and have interesting conversations). I think the amount of material citing Laozi as Confucius's contemporary or as coming before Confucius far outweighs the amount of material citing the opposite.

However, Confucianism is certainly the first to be actively taught, institutionalized, and formally adopted as a political system.

This may be of interest to some anarchists, who suggest that anarchism is the 'natural' form of (non)governance, and is a unique ideology in that, for anarchists, the theory stems from practice, as opposed to other ideologies, where the theory comes first on paper, then put into practice.

In fact, that may be the one key difference between classical anarchism and communism.

A lot of anarchism does indeed stem from practice, but it would be a shame to overlook that vast amount of anarchist philosophy that has been written and in some cases shaped more complex aspects of anarchist thought. When I look at communism and other ideologies, there are two big flaws that I immediately see. The first, is that they always feel the need to have a dictator, a king, or some other figure sitting on top living better than everyone else. The second, is their inability to adapt to change, whereas anarchism is always growing and thus, is always changing. I feel that a lot of systems find it very hard to rewrite their "rules," even when they cease to be needed or effective.

communism does not require a dictator or king at the top.  in fact, true communism would preclude such a position

Strange, it sounds like you are speaking of anarchist-communism. Perhaps the work of Peter Kropotkin? The Conquest of Bread was one of the first books I read on anarchist philosophy.

communism presupposes everyone being equal, which having a dictator kind of contradicts.

Sounds like anarchism to me.

[artimies7]

The best form of government, in my opinion, is one where everyone is sane and reasonable and can follow the basic rules, no matter the infrastructure or communication.

Rules:
-Don't kill people.
-Don't take stuff that's not yours.
-Honor your agreements.
-Plus or minus what you believe to be right.

But I'm being an idealist.

What happens when someone buries into a contract that a person has to do something really unpleasant? This is where problems come in and the simple rules become more complex.

Why would you sign or agree to a contract where you had to do something unpleasant? It wouldn't be honorable if they didn't tell you what you were getting into.

And if you did agree to do it, you probably should do it.

[russianspy1234]

Sounds like anarchism to me.

little bit yeah. although, communism does allow for someone who's job it is to enforce laws (and laws in general) which anarchism seems not to.

thing is, when you get to "pure" forms of political and economic systems, they tend to blur together.  pure capitalism would be indistinguishable from feudalism for example.
pure democracy would look like fascism with nothing in place to protect the rights of minorities.

[kimham8a]

The best form of government, in my opinion, is one where everyone is sane and reasonable and can follow the basic rules, no matter the infrastructure or communication.

Rules:
-Don't kill people.
-Don't take stuff that's not yours.
-Honor your agreements.
-Plus or minus what you believe to be right.

But I'm being an idealist.

What happens when someone buries into a contract that a person has to do something really unpleasant? This is where problems come in and the simple rules become more complex.

Why would you sign or agree to a contract where you had to do something unpleasant? It wouldn't be honorable if they didn't tell you what you were getting into.

And if you did agree to do it, you probably should do it.

What if you agreed to pay your life if you didn't pay back a very large loan after a certain time? The person might have been very rash in signing such a contract, but does he deserve to die?
Extreme example, but just showing that absolute rules often contradict and require more and more exceptions. After writing out many of these exceptions, you have something as complicated as law is today, which defeats the purpose of these simple rules.

[northcity4]

Hold on. Communism with dictators historically came about by what we call war communism. Is this what you are referring to.

In theory, the basic philosophical teaching were this: Someone wants to implement some form of communism. Capitalist societies feel that will 'infect' their region and thus must shut it down. Again, the example of the arms race. What happens is, you will not be able to get your country to communism if a threat is coming.

Only choice: devote all resources to the military: kills the economy, but saves the country. In order to do war communism, you need a leader who must make quick decisions because he doesn't have time to educate everyone else on what is going. This is the original definition of a dictator.

-->So, I say if there is no threat of war or oppression like a war, then a dictator will not rise up. We have yet to see an example of this. The reason dictators don't step down after a war: power feels great.
---> I am still going to argue right now (not my belief personally) that soviet socialism would still work as long as there is no dictator.

[northcity4]

The best form of government, in my opinion, is one where everyone is sane and reasonable and can follow the basic rules, no matter the infrastructure or communication.

Rules:
-Don't kill people.
-Don't take stuff that's not yours.
-Honor your agreements.
-Plus or minus what you believe to be right.

But I'm being an idealist.

What happens when someone buries into a contract that a person has to do something really unpleasant? This is where problems come in and the simple rules become more complex.

Why would you sign or agree to a contract where you had to do something unpleasant? It wouldn't be honorable if they didn't tell you what you were getting into.

And if you did agree to do it, you probably should do it.

What if you agreed to pay your life if you didn't pay back a very large loan after a certain time? The person might have been very rash in signing such a contract, but does he deserve to die?
Extreme example, but just showing that absolute rules often contradict and require more and more exceptions. After writing out many of these exceptions, you have something as complicated as law is today, which defeats the purpose of these simple rules.

I forget who argued it, but there was a philosopher who said ideal would also never work due to the love of money.