All of you have it wrong

Runnerbrax · 2003-07-28 18:49:26

Look, even though this is my first post and I know how much a "newbie" 's opinion matters. I don't think any form of government would work except for (forgive my American thoughts) a Republic with democrtatic aspects. Now that said, lets debunk the following other forms of government.
Anarchy: First off Anarchy whouldn't even be considered a form of government. It is a temporary state of human for lack of a better word, "existance". Say the Honorable Mr. Buch is killed as well as his joint-cheifs, delegates, generals, and anybody else in direct sovereghnty(pardon the spelling) of our government. What would happen? For a couple of hours a week at the most our country would be without a ruling body. "Anarchy" as defined would ensue. But after that, someone not in the "direct line" in our military, probably a Colonel or a Brigadier General would assume command and declare martial law until everything got sorted out. Hypothetically, if we went months without a ruling body, a foreign country would either step in and help, or kick the dog stuffing out of us and make our continent whatever their government is. "IF" that didn't even happen on the smallest level, cities, neighborhoods (spelling), even streets would band togerther making a "quasi" city-state and make rules to govern their lands. IF that didn't happen, you are reading a book and need to stop thinking, "Man that would be cool if..."
Communism: Why Russia failed and China is still a quasi Communism. I'm not going to go in to this area much because i havn't studied Russian and Chinese history that much. There are several reasons why Russia failed starting with good ol' Lenin the the last peasant under Kruscheve. First off the only economy was the military eceonmy, the military provided everything for everybody. That just doesn't work. Other examples of a Military ruling a country. Sparta, while they lasted much longer than our Commie buddies (I capitalized Commie because i do have somewhat respect for them) did was because they had a MUCH more educated country. But it was doomed to fail from the start (that is why Athens basically populated the world so to speak, they had a republic which was not ruled by a military). The second reason why Communistic Russia failed. Human desire/heart/whatever you call it was forced under the rug. Communism in its whole basically says "In order to be successfull the whole country has to take it for the team" It just doesn't work. And finally the third reason why Russian and Sparta failed was because Athens "outspent" them government wise, and economic wise, we pretty much did the same thing back in the 70's and mostly 80's. We kept spending and the Russians basically wrote rubber checks for half a decade.
In conclusion, the only true succesfull government is a Republic with democratic aspects. If you think you have a type of government thats better than a democratic republic then please e-mail me and tell me a bout it and I will debunk you because everything basically falls under those three categories... And yes a Monarchy is quasi Communism.

Josh Cryer · 2003-07-29 01:10:02

The thing is, communists would argue that the soviet practice of communism doesn't fit communism (look at Cuba, it's quite different there), and anarchists would certainly say that your definition of anarchism doesn't fit that of the definition created by hundreds of years of anarchist texts, mainly because anarchism isn't society without rules; if anything, it's society with rules that apply to everyone equally.

Palomar · 2003-07-29 08:30:24

anarchism isn't society without rules; if anything, it's society with rules that apply to everyone equally.

*It seems very improbable to me, given the human knack for "some people are more equal than others," even in the most democratic of Western societies. It seems humans tend to be hierarchical by nature; many animal societies are. This isn't to say I like it this way...but it seems to be part and parcel of human nature (at least to this point in our history).

Look at all the "everyday" Joes and Janes who aren't any better off and have no more to show for themselves than their neighbors, yet who actively look down their noses at so-and-so for being too fat or too thin, or "my kids are better/prettier/smarter than your kids", etc. Domination, superior attitudes, etc., are part of human nature, like it or not.

I can't foresee an anarchical world where everyone is content and recognizes everyone else as being equals. Anything is possible of course, but some matters are more doubtful than others.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-08-06 20:37:25

I think that, well, hierarchical structures don't have anything to do with the nature of beings, but their overall environment. Remove or change the environment, and you change the nature of a being. I think that domestication drives this point home well.

So, I think it's fair to say that humans have a nature of hierarchy, currently. But I don't think it's accurate to say that ?human nature,? in the context of some magical axioms that are universial regardless of the overall environment, is hierarchical. Personaly, I feel that humans are moving away from hierarchy. That's the whole idea behind democracy.

And hey, I don't think feeling superior to others is really hierarchical. Hierarchical (ie, authority) is making that subjective feeling into some sort of fact. Jane is fatter than me, so I'm going to make her work in the back room so no one sees her unattractive body. Because my subjective value system equates fat to ugly.

An anarchistic world doesn't have to recognize others as equals (though I feel that once we're at that point resource-wise, they will have no reason not to!), free association takes care of that. If Jane is fat, and I don't like fat people, Jane can recognize and do something about it, because there'd be other people around to help her and associate with her, who have no problems with fat people.

Palomar · 2003-08-07 05:58:19

Josh: Personaly, I feel that humans are moving away from hierarchy. That's the whole idea behind democracy.

*Well, I certainly hope so...but I'm a bit on the cynical side in regards to this.

Josh: And hey, I don't think feeling superior to others is really hierarchical. Hierarchical (ie, authority) is making that subjective feeling into some sort of fact. Jane is fatter than me, so I'm going to make her work in the back room so no one sees her unattractive body. Because my subjective value system equates fat to ugly.

*And what if Jane becomes boss, i.e. she's not going to be in the back room?

Josh: An anarchistic world doesn't have to recognize others as equals

*So some are "more equal than others"? Isn't that inadvertently encouraging a heirarchical mindset at least?

Josh: (though I feel that once we're at that point resource-wise, they will have no reason not to!), free association takes care of that. If Jane is fat, and I don't like fat people, Jane can recognize and do something about it, because there'd be other people around to help her and associate with her, who have no problems with fat people.

*Ah, but what about social constructs? I grew up in a predominantly white population (99%) in Iowa. I remember even 11 years ago, when I moved out of the Mid-West, how skinny-crazy white people are. Although I'm slim, the Latino population in my adopted home are much more relaxed about chubbiness and being overweight. It's really not a big (pardon the pun) issue with Latinos (at least in this area) as it is with whites. To be really honest, the obsession that white culture (includes me, I'm white) has with being "slim, fit 'n trim" can seem to border on mental illness. Women and men both suffer from bulimia, anorexia, undergo all sorts of radical surgeries in order to comply with the white-culture standard, etc. THAT is unhealthy: The quest to be slim and healthy has become UNhealthy. One of my best friends back home was overweight...and she had a sparkling, gentle personality and was very cute (Carmen was her name); she was self-confident and very popular in school despite being overweight. And think of how big the Diet and Exercise Industry is (Ka-Ching!). I think they're in cahoots with Frito-Lay, Hershey's and Burger King ("come in and we'll pack on the pounds, then you can run over to GNC and pay a year's dues to Gold's Gym!"). But that's the gist of the weight obsession: It's much, much more about standards of beauty than it is about health (though most people would refuse to admit this).

Arnold Schwarzenegger smokes cigars! Jean-Claude van Damm (spelling?) has a cocaine habit! Aw, that's okay...they're slim and buff. Let's all be cookie-cutter people. ::shrugs::

I started getting chubby around age 8, and it peaked at age 15...I was getting REALLY chubby. Then, when I took the weight off in my 16th year (and have kept it off), I noticed a peculiar thing: Girls who formerly wouldn't associate with me as a friend (apparently, to them, I had absolutely zero redeeming features while a Chubette) suddenly found me interesting and "worthwhile." I understand why the males around me would have reacted in a similar manner (social values, sexuality, etc.). Then I discovered a few jealous girls who actually each snarled at me on one occasion. Okay, now those girls don't like me because I'm slim and thus am competition to them. I understand jealousy and the competition thing. What I didn't understand then, however,
were the sociable females who "suddenly" found me "interesting, and worthwhile" just because I'd taken off about 30 pounds. What, overweight people are all bad, terrible and worthless...and slim people are all wonderful and perfect? I'll NEVER forget that experience; I've been on both sides of the fence. It's silly.

Ah...getting off topic a bit.

Society can be so tyrannical.

BTW, my middle name is Jane. So, what if you and Big Jane live in a society where being chubby/overweight is acceptable and maybe even considered attractive (as it indeed is in other societies)? What are you going to do, Josh?

No offense intended...just playing devil's advocate a bit.

Let's not forget social constructs. And remember that 50 years ago, if a white person didn't want to see a black person, said black person was relegated to the back of the bus or a tiny room off the main restaurant seating area.

Again, can't help playing devil's advocate here.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-08-07 07:43:49

So, I think it's fair to say that humans have a nature of hierarchy, currently. But I don't think it's accurate to say that ?human nature,? in the context of some magical axioms that are universial regardless of the overall environment, is hierarchical. Personaly, I feel that humans are moving away from hierarchy. That's the whole idea behind democracy.

Is a 'democracy' hierarchial or not? Can you choose not to follow the elected officals, or the will of the 'democracy'?
Or must you submit your personal will and choice to the overall will of the group witihn a democray?

Let's say I want to smoke in an elevator, may I without repercussion from the group who happens to be in the elevator with me?

Let's say we take a straw poll vote within the elevator, and a majority of the people do not want me or anyone else to smoke in the elevator, at this point, haven't I submitted to the hierarchal system by which order is maintained within the group?

Sure, it's a bit more fair then one person making a decision that may or may not represent the interests of the group, but it's still a tyranny of sorts.

We change the names, the ideas, the associations, but the concepts are still exactly the same.

clark · 2003-08-07 09:26:37

Runnerbrax,

I don't think any form of government would work except for (forgive my American thoughts) a Republic with democrtatic aspects.

Spoken like a true patriot. However, many forms of government have, and do work, and many of them are not a Republic with democratic aspects. Government, in any form, may only work, and will only 'work', as long as enough people go along with it. How that equilibrium is reached, or the best way to reach it though is entirely open to interpretation.

I am quoting Jerry Pournelle here,

"You are useful only until we find someone cheaper, at which point you are out on the street. Have a nice day. That is another view of life."

This is a rather accurate view of life in our Republic today. Dosen't sound rather egalitarian if you ask me. Many forms of government seek to redress this issue, which is anthema to a capitalist society- which America is, and which has nothing to do with our form of government.

Yet somehow we have been led to believe so.

Communism in its whole basically says "In order to be successfull the whole country has to take it for the team" It just doesn't work.

Yet Corporate welfare is all of us 'taking one for the team' too. There is no difference, jsut different priorities.

As always, some priorities are 'better' than others. And some priorities are more worthwhile than others too.

Josh Cryer · 2003-08-07 12:08:51

Cindy, I weigh between 190 and 210 (my weight fluctuates depending on how busy I am and whether or not I'm able to eat). I'm 5'9". Medium-small frame (measured my wrist using some other offical metric). I am ?offically? fat by certain standards (check out various BMI sites).

I hope you didn't misconstrue what I was saying. I don't think it's okay to feel superior to other people, but I don't think there's a legitimate way we can make other people not feel that way; other than merely telling them how we feel about it. If someone thinks Jane is fat and unattractive, I can say that I disagree, and that's just about it. What else could I do? Force them to agree with me? I should point out that there's a difference between feeling and acting. White supremecists can hate black people all they want, that's how they feel about it, so there ya go. What can you do? Arrest them? As long as they don't act on those biggoted feelings, they are nothing. They have no effect on society, and therefore their feelings are irrelevant.

When I say that an anarchist world doesn't have to recognize others as equals, I mean that I could practice my own flavor of anarchism and consider it superior because it uses a decentralized planned economy, while you live in a mutualist society which is less efficient and potentially requires more individual interaction. How is that bothering anyone? It would only have adverse effects if I were to, say, not do business with you on that basis alone. Anarchism would promote compromises in situations of that nature, however. Just like in that other thread where the guy made some arguments about IRC or chat or game systems being unable to be anarchistic.

BTW, I liked your comparasions between latinos and whites. It's just that I don't see human emotion or feeling being hierarchial, but rather the actions of humans in and of themselves. If everyone has pretty good living conditions and Josh's magical anarchist utopia exists, the biggoted nature of some people would merely be an annoyance at best, because economically speaking, these bigots would be nothings.

clark, I don't think that's an example of hierarchy. There is no one individual who holds more power in that situation. Each vote is taken equally. Hierarchy means a higher authority. When you take into account the individual authority of each person in the elevator, it's quite apparent that they are equal and no hierarchial structure exists.

Think about it this way. If, instead of having a vote, I were to ask each individual in the elevator if I could smoke a cigarette, and each individual said they would rather I not, it's more obvious that the structure here is direct, and lacks any sort of hierarchy. We need to stop thinking of total groups as individuals, because they're not.

Note that this is a situation where there is action. It's not like they're voting the guy off because he has grey hair (I would've said fat, but there's a legitimate reason to vote a fat person off an elevator- his weight in and of itself is an active factor!).

Palomar · 2003-08-07 12:20:56

Josh: Cindy, I weigh between 190 and 210 (my weight fluctuates depending on how busy I am and whether or not I'm able to eat). I'm 5'9". Medium-small frame (measured my wrist using some other offical metric). I am ?offically? fat by certain standards (check out various BMI sites).

*Oh yeah? Do you look like any TV/film stars we know?

Josh: I hope you didn't misconstrue what I was saying.

*I did misunderstand. I guess the whole weight loss/diet frenzy/body image hysteria in the U.S.A. "gets me" and I did misinterpret what you were saying...or, rather, HOW you were saying it. It's like religion: Too much emotional baggage.

Sorry.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-08-07 12:24:51

clark, I don't think that's an example of hierarchy. There is no one individual who holds more power in that situation. Each vote is taken equally. Hierarchy means a higher authority.

In a democracy, who, or what, has a higher authority than your own individual will?

In the case of the example, I want to smoke, but most of the other people in the elevator with me, don't want me to. If I don't smoke, then I have submitted my will to that of another.

Now, in a democracy, we say that it takes a 'majority' of people to make the final decision, not just one person, or a small group of people, or whoever is strongest. In the end though, the individual will is subsumed by the groups will.

In essence, this imbues the group as an overarching body with the power to compell your will to that of the decisions of the superbody, regardless of your personal prefrence. Hierrarchy is inherent in any relationship between two or more people.

When you take into account the individual authority of each person in the elevator, it's quite apparent that they are equal and no hierarchial structure exists.

All true, as individuals exercising their view points, all are equal. However, the majority who hold like minded positions then becomes the determing factor. In essence, where 'whoever is strongest' was once the norm for establishing government, we have morphed to 'whatever is popular'. But it's still the same process, the same fundamentaly.

We need to stop thinking of total groups as individuals, because they're not.

Yet groups act like individuals, and we develop relationships to groups as if they were individuals. What is greater than an individual? The group comprised of multiple individuals. We give up a portion of our individuality to the group whenever we submit to the will of the group and it is against our will or wishes.

Josh Cryer · 2003-08-07 14:38:34

I fail to see a disagreement here, clark.

Anarchism isn't a system where no one submits their will for any given situation. Granted, it tries to be the system which submits the least will, but I never once felt that anarchism suggests a society where everyone has unlimited will and can magically do anything they want.

Runnerbrax · 2003-08-07 16:28:38

Communism in its whole basically says "In order to be successfull the whole country has to take it for the team" It just doesn't work.

Yet Corporate welfare is all of us 'taking one for the team' too. There is no difference, jsut different priorities.

As always, some priorities are 'better' than others. And some priorities are more worthwhile than others too.

Government, in any form, may only work, and will only 'work', as long as enough people go along with it. How that equilibrium is reached, or the best way to reach it though is entirely open to interpretation.

I think it was clark who said that heirarchy (sp?) is in human nature. I tottaly agree. Now that relates to the quote above on saying "...only work as long as people go along with it." I agree with you to. When taking a small colony of people with similair ideals, likes, and dislikes who all know and understand what a communism is I think it would become a very succesful establishment. But when you mix "Elvis fans" with "Mettalica fans" (bear with me here) not everyone is going to like a communistic government. Its in our human nature not to be equal. Just look at history in the past, what 3000 years ? Its the same all throughout history, there has to be a heirarchy in order for a government to work. And in (God Bless America lol) a Republic with democratic aspects heirarchy is everywhere. Take your average sacker a Wall-Mart who is "quasi" in charge of him ? The cashier. Who is in charge of all the cashiers ? The CSM Customer Sales Manager. Who is in charge of the CSM's ? The head CSM, next in line ? Customer Sales Representative, then Assistant manager and then manager. Now without that sacker having anybody to naswer to he could tell a customer off (coming from experience...don't do that) and not fear retribution from anyone in that heirachal list i mentioned. That was a rebuttal to whomever was promoting anarchy.
Now onto your secod rebuttal. I don't know what half the words meant (only a freshman in college) so i can't really rubutt that. Thank you for you post

Runnerbrax · 2003-08-07 16:31:17

The thing is, communists would argue that the soviet practice of communism doesn't fit communism (look at Cuba, it's quite different there), and anarchists would certainly say that your definition of anarchism doesn't fit that of the definition created by hundreds of years of anarchist texts, mainly because anarchism isn't society without rules; if anything, it's society with rules that apply to everyone equally.

But communism is a utopian society where everyone likes whats happeneing and wants it to stay. Cubans in a whole DO NOT enjoy communism.

Josh Cryer · 2003-08-07 17:53:43

That's not true. I'm not here to defend Cuba, but the Cubans are, on the whole, more and more happy with the way their government is heading. 20 or so years ago this may have been the case (though even then Castro was a clear better alternative than Batista from their perspective- Cubans have a history of revolting against leaders they don't like- if they were unhappy, Castro would be gone), but with the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba had to get their act together and work on economic and social philosophies that actually, well, worked. Like their local food growing centers, and so on (really a no-brainer when you think about it- that's how it'll be on Mars). Decentralization is one of the tenents of anarchism, and I believe that if the communists didn't kick out the anarchists way back when, most of the world would be enjoying some form of anarchism on a wide scale (at the very least, from an economic liberties point of view). Decentralizing the Cuban government (on the local level) has worked in Cuba.

My main problem with heirarchy is that it promotes dependent relationships. A republic is an inherently centralized form of orginaztion, and I'm not convinced that it (centralized government) is necessary for a free society.

Runnerbrax · 2003-08-07 19:29:00

I may start to confuse myself while in the middle of this rebuttle so i take one thing at a time. The Cuban people as a whole do not like the way their government is going. Senor Castro is the president because he rules with an iron fist. That is why no one speaks out against him, they are afraid for their lives and their loved ones lives.
Now it is obvious you have studied anarchism at its fullest since youl diced me pretty well in your rubuttal. But if you have many decentralized "colonies" on Mars so to speak, who would take care of trading with neiboring colonies ? How would you set up "safe houses" for travelers or neiboring (sp!) colonies if a wicked sandstorm picked up ? Or pirates who preyed on little colonies like the ones your talking about ? This is more of a rehtorical question and I would tell you my answer but you probably already know and I sort of know what you would say but i would like to know. Im not trying to sound like a dick, just curious.

Josh Cryer · 2003-08-07 23:26:25

Hmm... I'm not going to debate Cuba, because I disagree with much of its government structure (though I understand why they've done it they way they have). Defending Cuba would put me in the position suggesting that I agree with certain policies when I don't. I think a good website regarding Cuba is the Cuban FAQ. Personally, I wouldn't mind going to Cuba, myself (but I wouldn't mind going to China or Iraq for that matter, either- my brother is in Iraq, that'd be cool), but the US has made it illegal for Americans to travel there.

You bring up a lot of good questions, but I don't see how any answers would be exclusive to a republic.

In a republic, who ?takes care? of trading between states and cities? Not the government; the government just maintains the conduits so that trade can happen (ie, the roads, powerlines and so on). These conduits don't have to be maintained by a government, especially when you're talking about a harsh environment like space where the conduits are absolutely necessary for survival (on Earth, a road can deteriorate without major complications, whereas on Mars it could mean death). So individuals will have more incentive to take it upon themselves to take care of these things, rather than relying on an overreaching government who controls the resources centrally.

In a republic, how would the safe house concept work? Probably much the same way it would work in anarchism. People would decide where to put people who need help. Except in the case of the republic, it's more than likely going to be some sanctioned place for people to go, whereas the anarchy would have people sit around and discuss it a bit, putting the people whereever it's decided they're most welcome (ie, they bunk in someones room or a recently emptied room). In the republic we're relying on the government to maintain some safehouse. In anarchy, the safehouse ceases to be some house specifically designed for that, but rather whatever extra room exists when it's needed. I won't argue the realism of such a situation, though, but I would deseprately hope that they would be able to survive a long sandstorm without outside help (a republic probably would benefit from crappy vehicles that require an Administration of Vehicle Rescue and Repair or something, though).

How would a republic prevent colonies from being raped by pirates? The colony would defend itself somehow. A republic would probably have a tax-paid army of sorts, whereas an anarchy would merely have a populace able to defend itself.

And don't worry, you don't sound like a dick. I'm probably coming off as more of a dick, really. If so, sorry.

clark · 2003-08-08 09:36:45

Its in our human nature not to be equal. Just look at history in the past, what 3000 years ?

Some say it's our human nature to rape, kill, destroy, and plunder from those around us. Just look at the last 50 years.

If it is not human nature to try and be equal, why have many socieites developed the rule of law, which is all about equality? Why have people chosen democracy, which is about establishing equality between people?

It's usually wise not to declare what is and is not 'human nature', as even the really smart people (not saying you're not one of them!) don't quite know what it is.

The only part of human nature I have been convinced makes sense is that Humans have a choice in their behaviour, at least to a degree beyond any other animal. We can choose to be other than what we are, or we can choose to be wholly what we are. Rape and plunder, or not.

A dog is just a dog, and will always be a dog. A person though...

Its the same all throughout history, there has to be a heirarchy in order for a government to work.

True, hierarchy is an effeienct means to achieve the completion of tasks beyond the capability of one individual. Now the question then becomes, what is the apporiate level of 'hierarchy' needed for any given situation, and for every given situatuion.

Sometimes two or three people can do more than an army... at least the SpOps say so. :;):

Josh is pointing out that as technology increases, as our interdependancy between individuals is reduced, the overall neccessity of a large hierarchy is reduced. As such, we devolve into smaller groups of individuals, which allows us to hold one another accountable.

Why does beuracracy grow? It becomes more neccessary as out ability to hold one another accountable on a personal level decreases. What need do I have of the FDA if I know the local farmer and the local butcher? I have a problem, the town will know, and I know who to complain to.

Now, say I'm in an anonymous town, going to some chain supermarket. Who do I know here? Who do i hold accountable if I get bad food? The manager of the supermarket? The CEo who bought the shipment of meat for the supermarket in some far off city? The meat packers out in the midwest somewhere? No, not very effecient, so I would really like the FDA to help me out...

We can only trust a very few people, and most of those are the people we 'know'. Afetr that, we need to develop groups or have specific people that we 'know' we can trust to deal with these issues. It's just more effecient.

Ranger_2833 · 2003-08-23 19:37:37

Perhaps the problem isn't in which style we choose. Humans are the problem with government. No matter what style you choose, some one is going to overstep their bounds eventually. Democracy leads to (uneducated) rule of the herd, republicanism leads to ogliarchy, monarchy invites autocracy, anarchy leads to a lack of civilization, ad infinitum. Any of these theories may be a theoretical utopia, but they do not take into account the human factor.

Most people don't want to have to think about ruling, and those that do obsess with ruling more or profiting from it. Fix the way humans think and then you can begin to decide on a government. Otherwise your populus will be very small. If you can think of a way to fix humanity, I'd love to hear it. But until then, debating which government will bring utopia for every individual is futile. Unless of course we are talking about a government of one in total isolation.

space_psibrain · 2003-08-23 23:06:53

I agree with Ranger, in that the problem is not the form of government that is chosen, but human nature in itself. Most people are apathetic, and do not worry about anything unnecessarily, being content to live out their own little lives, and as long as one does not take away their rights, they are happy.

People in general would not give a flying hoot, really, if their government changed, as long as their way of life stayed the same.

Runnerbrax · 2003-08-28 11:33:05

now that ranger and space psi-brain put it that way, its sounds pretty futile that we are arguing what we are arguing. but if someone is going to argue about it, it might as well be us. hehe. With everyform of government as pointed out earlier, is fallible. because a human being created it. With communism nobody will notice if you skim a couple million off the top, same thing with all of them really. BUt... i really don't know what i am saying here, i am taking an advanced governemnt class at myy college now and hopfully by the end of the semester be able to argue with the best of you. Oh and i sincerly apologize for not posting sooner. LAst few weeks have been pretty frelled up.

Surferosad · 2003-08-28 13:24:47

Hi, I'm a newbie, so don't shoot me!

One of the things that makes me support human colonization of Mars is the possibility of cultural diversification. In this optic, I think that there shouldn't be any kind of "Mars Government", only general rules about a Martian colonists duties and some kind of human rights charter to prevent human rights abuses (however, I think that a small number of humans exposed to a tough, unforgiving environment will tend to naturally develop a sense of solidarity and equality). Let people experiment! Different colonies will develop different kinds of government.

Personally, I would like to live in a colony where principles of equality of opportunity and social responsibility are the norm. One think I do abhor about most so called western democracies is the undo influence that money and image has on electoral politics. Regularly conducting popularity contests is no way of forming a government! What I would like to see is either some kind of anarcho-syndicalism, or maybe the members of government should be chosen the old Athenian way i.e. by drawing lots! This would ensure equality, citizen participation, avoid the formation of a professional politician class, and that minorities and women are fairly represented. It would also be in the interest of the everyone under this kind of government to have a well educated population, used to debating ideas and accepting divergent opinions.

Palomar · 2003-08-28 14:43:26

Personally, I would like to live in a colony where principles of equality of opportunity and social responsibility are the norm.

*Greetings, and welcome!

Social responsibility....yes (those two words do not seem to be very popular in certain current cultures -- including and especially my own, where too many people live with this persistent delusion of "you can be an island").

--Cindy

Runnerbrax · 2003-08-29 07:38:08

surfer so sad has a nice point but (hopefully not sounding like a dick that i have been told i am) not everyone will want to be "educated" enough to run a government. There will always be people who just want to follow as long as they are hal-way happy with theway things are running. That was a good idea but a preverbial lottery for office doesn't look to effective to me.

Josh Cryer · 2003-08-30 13:50:08

Surfersosad, I was saying basicially the same things in the constitution thread. I know you're new, but it's an interesting thread to read (and I would recommend reading some of the larger threads, since they contain a little bit of everything!).

This is what I've told clark before, when he would question me about the point of colonization at all (not just Mars, mind you). Colonizing space opens up more than a few opportunities for society to diversify even more than it is already.

I think you should read the Red Mars triliogy, especially the fourth installment which has assorted texts, including the Consitution of Mars. I agree with the concept of drawing lots, within a representative system. Yay for another anarchist-leaning individual on board!

Surferosad · 2003-08-30 18:09:28

I've read the Red Mars trilogy! I'm going to look into that constitution thread.

Runnerbrax: "Surfer So Sad" ?! What is this? Look, if you can't respect people who don't share your opinions, I suggest you stop posting! Now that has been taken care of...

I'm not proposing that Mars colonies should all be governed the same way. If people want to be ruled under systems were they only have to "follow along", well, they can always arrange to do so. However, I don't think many will really want to live that way, given the choice! I think one of the reasons why most people in the so called western democracies seem apathetic is simply due to the fact that they know that they don't really have a say concerning the way how things are run... Anyway, what if some people just follow along? As long as they're a small minority, it will be ok.

But if you don't trust the people to govern themselves (that's basically what you seem to be saying), then what do you propose?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-07-28 18:49:26

Re: All of you have it wrong

#2 2003-07-29 01:10:02

Re: All of you have it wrong

#3 2003-07-29 08:30:24

Re: All of you have it wrong

#4 2003-08-06 20:37:25

Re: All of you have it wrong

#5 2003-08-07 05:58:19

Re: All of you have it wrong

#6 2003-08-07 07:43:49

Re: All of you have it wrong

#7 2003-08-07 09:26:37

Re: All of you have it wrong

#8 2003-08-07 12:08:51

Re: All of you have it wrong

#9 2003-08-07 12:20:56

Re: All of you have it wrong

#10 2003-08-07 12:24:51

Re: All of you have it wrong

#11 2003-08-07 14:38:34

Re: All of you have it wrong

#12 2003-08-07 16:28:38

Re: All of you have it wrong

#13 2003-08-07 16:31:17

Re: All of you have it wrong

#14 2003-08-07 17:53:43

Re: All of you have it wrong

#15 2003-08-07 19:29:00

Re: All of you have it wrong

#16 2003-08-07 23:26:25

Re: All of you have it wrong

#17 2003-08-08 09:36:45

Re: All of you have it wrong

#18 2003-08-23 19:37:37

Re: All of you have it wrong

#19 2003-08-23 23:06:53

Re: All of you have it wrong

#20 2003-08-28 11:33:05

Re: All of you have it wrong

#21 2003-08-28 13:24:47

Re: All of you have it wrong

#22 2003-08-28 14:43:26

Re: All of you have it wrong

#23 2003-08-29 07:38:08

Re: All of you have it wrong

#24 2003-08-30 13:50:08

Re: All of you have it wrong

#25 2003-08-30 18:09:28

Re: All of you have it wrong

Board footer