Envision, Create, Share

Welcome to HBGames, a leading amateur game development forum and Discord server. All are welcome, and amongst our ranks you will find experts in their field from all aspects of video game design and development.

Anarchy and other

I've been thinking lately about different goverments.

If I understand correctly, Anarchy is when there is no government. If there is no government then what happens to all the government(our tax collectors) supported jobs like Police, Fireman, Schools, troops, and ect.? So why would anyone want this type of government(no goverment). They would be open target to the other countries around the world.

Anwyays, discuss, what do you think is best government type!
 
Myonosken said:
Cuba is a brilliant exampleof communism. Sure tthe US hate them, but things are going quite well aren't they ^_^.
You are joking right? Sarcasim tags needed!

CHINA! is the best example ;)

I don't like communism because its not by the people, but it is for them, in most cases no, Communist Russia was a good example. It is also less freedom.
 
Anarchy is the lack of government. In an ideal world, anarchy would be the greatest thing to happen. Seeming as there's no taxes, no incentive to ruin other people's lives by stealing their money, because there would BE no money. Just a group of people living in complete equality, farming in an original system supporing themselves and eachother through random farming and whatnot.

On the otherhand, society would fail to exist, as would any but absolutely rudimentary technology.

Also, it's impossible seeming as greed is ingrained in our bones, our very fiber. We'd also group together, and work as a group in greed, screwing over the other groups of people farming, taking their loot, and starting the first empire of violence eventually leading to our current position! YAY FUTILITY
 
Andy6000 said:
Anarchy is the lack of government.
My commerce teacher told me that it was a lack of laws/law enforcement.
The governemnt are still there, they're just sleepping and barricading their doors.
 
Myonosken said:
Cuba is a brilliant exampleof communism. Sure tthe US hate them, but things are going quite well aren't they ^_^.

Um not only does the US hate them but the thousands of Cubans who escaped from the country hate their lack of freedom in Cuba as well. Any country that has people trying to escape by sea...is not a "brilliant example of communism"

I agree with someone on China. Although some things go on there and people would never accept anywhere else. But I haven't heard of mass emigration to other countries from China have you?
 
Mr.Mo said:
If I understand correctly, Anarchy is when there is no government. If there is no government then what happens to all the government(our tax collectors) supported jobs like Police, Fireman, Schools, troops, and ect.? So why would anyone want this type of government(no goverment). They would be open target to the other countries around the world.

I though anarchy was a state of chaos due to a LACK of government....not another form of it...oh well. I don't think is a form of government people "choose". Its something that happens when one form of government falls/is overthrown.

An idea government? How about a truely equal society where the common people aren't exploited by the wealthy upperclass (about 10% of the total population). Will it ever happen? No. The closest thing I can think of to this would be communism...but...ya. The biggest problem with communism is that a truely equal society cannot be established/maintained without a group that is above the majority to regulate/control the "equality", thus nulifying the whole "everyone is equal" thing....
 
Um not only does the US hate them but the thousands of Cubans who escaped from the country hate their lack of freedom in Cuba as well. Any country that has people trying to escape by sea...is not a "brilliant example of communism"

Okay. I'm from Cuba. Obviously, you have your facts wrong.

There are usually two reasons why Cubans leave Cuba.

1. Most of them are politcal prisoners.
2. They don't like the communist regime.

Now; if you 've ever been to Cuba, you'll realize this.

1. Free healthcare (might I say that Cuba has some of the best doctors.)
2. Free Education.
3. Other benifits.

Now; there is really only one downside and that is that you usually don't get too much money.
 
Anarchy is a rediculous counterweight to fascism, which though also rediculous is far more workable as a governing power.
Honestly? I think in theory a confederacey would work best for the USA.

(no, the confederacey had little to do with slaves, if that's your belief dont even talk until you get the straight facts.)

With a confederacey, each state would act on its own accord. Want an abortion? Live here. Want to live in a state where gay marriage isnt allowed? Live there? And so on. The federal power would act more like a UN and set the basic guidelines which all states must adhere to(which would be very indirect, like the original bill of rights), and if the federal power decided the US needed to go to war(and this is important, now) EACH INDIVIDUAL STATE would decide on their own if they wanted to be a part of said war since the military would be rationed out by the state(not meaning each state had a base, but each state would have its military men deployed by the state's wim, not the federal government's). Basically, the state power would supercede the federal power and instead of pretending 200 million+ people can agree on singular policies, everyone gets basically what they want by going to their likeminded state. The taxes go primarily into state programs(which would include school and military funding for said state), with a small portion going into federal programs(NASA, international military funding, etc. the amount is again decided by the state). Also the federal Bill of Rights would be amendable, and this is where direct democracety seeps in. The people of each state, not the governor ie representative, vote of federal bills when they come about and the bill's yay vote must supercede 75% of the total votecount to be passed. This would be difficult since partial state sovereignty would increase partisanship, but that's the point;it DOESNT change on a wim. A crazy president cant just march in and change everything.
So it wouldnt be a direct Confederacey(because that would give some states a little too much power and they'd bring back slavery or some crazy thing) but Confederacey with elements of direct democracey when dealing on the federal level.
 
For a long time, the United States was a Federation, fairly close to a Confederacy(technically its consider a Federal Republic). States did make the majority of the laws, often referred to as "common law", and the Federal Government was restricted to a narrow set of laws Congress could pass by Article I of the Constitution(in addition to the Bill of Rights). The Federal Government was essentially restricted to managing interstate trade, foreign trade, foreign diplomacy, and war.

The power divisions that exist today between the Federal Government and the States seems to have vastly eroded, with the Federal Government having significantly more power in the domestric affairs of the States. The States still have significant power though, they still run the public education system, and most basic laws, such as those against murder and theft, are upheld and enforced by the States.

It would be nice if we could restore the country to a Federal Republic though, as it seems people in this country can't agree to anything.
 
And they shouldnt have to. The fact is for ANY country this big to completely adhere to a singular governmental policy you'd need some level of dictatorship. People arent, and shouldnt agree on everything. What works in rural Tennessee isnt what works in New York; different people, different priorities. A farmer in tennessee cares about as much about things that effect places like urban New York's ghettos as they do what's going on in Zimbobweh, but part of his tax is paying for it anyhow. Maybe he'd preffer his son to have a better education, and maybe the people in the ghetto would preffer their tax to go into reforming their community, and maybe neither give a shit about NASA or the middleeast. Etc. and so on.
I think you're right, though, our federalized state created many enemies for us and its for that reason that we must keep a federalized state. Its like the monster that gets bigger and bigger the more you feed it, but if you stop feeding it it'll eat you.
 
The ideal government is probably in Sweden, I'd say. It's a form of socialism. Really high taxes, but doctors and education, among other things, are free. Sweden's known for having one of the world's smallest wealth gaps, they haven't had a war since the early 1800s, and their economy is strong and stable. It's not the most powerful country in the world, but who cares? Nearly everybody in the country has a very high standard of living, and that's what matters most.
 
We'd also group together, and work as a group in greed, screwing over the other groups of people farming, taking their loot, and starting the first empire of violence eventually leading to our current position!
and small forms of government would emerge to rule those in the goup XD

I used ot believe democracy was THE BEST way to rule. But lately I have been reading up on the greek islands and back in the day of the trojan wars and all that they were all city-states, they all had different governments, and they whatever worked they did.

So anarchy/communism/democracy or any other combo may work in some situations...

I personally would not mind anarchy, but only if it were on a small island, like guam or hawaii, anything bigger, and you oculd not really form relationships with everyone to insure your safety...
 
kayin33 said:
The ideal government is probably in Sweden, I'd say. It's a form of socialism. Really high taxes, but doctors and education, among other things, are free. Sweden's known for having one of the world's smallest wealth gaps, they haven't had a war since the early 1800s, and their economy is strong and stable. It's not the most powerful country in the world, but who cares? Nearly everybody in the country has a very high standard of living, and that's what matters most.

I'm not for high taxes. Why should I support the lazy?
 
Since when did sucess in bussiness have anything to do with the quality of life you deserve, Mr.Mo?

AceJP, the Greek city states were not states of one country. They were all independent nations and often fought with each other. They only acted together while they had shared interests (ie killing Persians).

There have been one or two small communistic communities down the years, but it cannot function where there is specialisation. For instance, in the Aman Islands (or is it the Aalands? I forget), all possesions were strictly forbidden expect for a certain tree. Everyone could own one of these trees, and marked them. Any fruit of any kind was shared equally between all members of the tribe: If you had, you gave, and if you needed, you recieved. This system is called Reciprocal Generocity. Now this tree, the only possesion allowed on the island, it fucking stinks. The fruit - it fucking stinks. And it tastes even worse. I mean, you sit in a small encolsed space with it for ten minutes, you'd probably throw up. However, if someone from another tribe took fruit from your fucking stinking tree, you would hunt them, and their children, and their childrens' children, and there would be war between them unto the seventh generation, yea. The world's very first irony. It's quite beautiful.

However, this system only works where everyone can do everything - ie a hunter gatherer society. As soon as you settle and start to specialise, these systems disapeared. However, they weren't exactly perfect. For instance, the minute you couldn't support yourself, you were out in the cold. Literaly, they'd expose the elderly. On the other hand, they had an astonishing amount of time to devote to leisure. So much so, in fact, that they are called "The world's first and only leisure societies".

Here's another piece of interesting information about social dynamics. Every civilisation has to go through a certain number of phases, in order, before it can reach democracy. And every single successful democracy has undergone it. They go in order, with various stages including, it is to be noted, benign dictatorship. Now, this is widely known and indisputed amung historians. And if you are a politician and do not know this, you are not worth a thing. Yet western governments keep on trying to introduce democracies into nations which are simply not ready, and without almost exception they have all broken down.

ryan, a seperation of states as you describe is absolute madness. Rich people move together, the poor and less mobile are left behind. Do you really think that everyone can just upsticks and move wherever they want? What about their houses? What about their families? Although, you almost exist in this kind of system already. After Katrina, there were helicopters stationed at military bases just across the state line equipped for exactly that kind of disaster, which were left to sit there. Nobody even thought to send them over. The road leading from the stadium where hundreds nearly died of thirst and hunger to the nearest airport was completely clear, yet no one thought of sending over water in planes. A strong centralised executive is exactly what is needed in these kinds of situations.
 
I already said it'd be impossible to implement now because the executive power damage is too high and the classes are too polarized. I was just saying in theory, had history not made the civil war into "slaveowners who eat babies against the best president ever that farts flowers and freedom" maybe we'd of been better off if the confederates won since at that time, people of likened mind could move to their likened state. Though, like you said, most already do so it wouldnt exactly be a huge migration. Is there an influx of gay people in Kentucky? No, a bunch are already in San Fransisco. You're hyperbolizing the effort it would take to get likened minds into likened states. I think for the rest, they could be "bothered" to move if it meant they could have an abortion, or they could go to a clinic allowed to attempt stem cell research,(or a state banning both), and so on because the polarizing issues that would dictate the need for a confederacey are important enough for a large number of people to be willing to move for them. All the poor would move into a single state of nelgect? Way to compeltely scew and overlook the basic premise, cheif. Their taxes if they so chose could go completely back into their community. The rich areas, if they so chose, could have all their taxes go toward supporting a war that supports their stock or whatever. The federal government, liek I said, would stay in power hence states wouldnt be so rediculously polarized as to want to destroy one another. If most people can agree on a wrong(above 75%, I hate repeating myself) its wrong nationwide and the whole of the nation can agree to contribute. A strong executive is what hindered Katrina, because a strong executive is more concerned about prolonging its own agendas, not helping people in random disasters. Additionally, FEMA is in charge of such things, not the executive power so Im not reall sure why a strong central government is a plus for huge disasters over a small area.
No, with such scattered taxing laws we couldnt afford to "spread our freedom" because the military would be vastly less funded, but maybe it'd be a good thing to just worry about our own for a while instead of making enemies that further dictate the need of a strong federal presence.
 
After Katrina, there were helicopters stationed at military bases just across the state line equipped for exactly that kind of disaster, which were left to sit there. Nobody even thought to send them over. The road leading from the stadium where hundreds nearly died of thirst and hunger to the nearest airport was completely clear, yet no one thought of sending over water in planes. A strong centralised executive is exactly what is needed in these kinds of situations.

We had a strongly centralized executive for this situation. They were just too busy fighting wars in the desert to notice.
 
Well, this next generation of poor people will be largely self-defeated because the young people of this generation think the world owes them something and they're not getting that proper backhand to the face which brings them down to earth.
 
No system is truly perfect. As Mr.Mo said, the weakness of a socialist government is that it's easier for lazy people to succeed in life. However, the weakness for the opposite, low tax system is that many poor people, no matter how hard they work, will never be given opportunity. I'd rather see life be slightly easier for lazy people than see a complete lack of opportunity for others. A perfect intermediate tax line is extremely debatable.
 

Thank you for viewing

HBGames is a leading amateur video game development forum and Discord server open to all ability levels. Feel free to have a nosey around!

Discord

Join our growing and active Discord server to discuss all aspects of game making in a relaxed environment. Join Us

Content

  • Our Games
  • Games in Development
  • Emoji by Twemoji.
    Top