Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to NationStates - Canada. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
SFTDOG; Society For The Discussion Of Government
Topic Started: Jul 14 2008, 10:54 AM (1,465 Views)
Niongor
Member Avatar
Giver of the *Hi-5*
Mirahge,Jul 15 2008
07:05 AM
Aw, its not all bad, its main goal is world peace, after all, right?

"World peace" was also the vision of Hitler...yair, I know, the war-mungering dwarf from Austria! I read Hitler is the third bloodiest dictator of all time, behind Stalin and Mao Zedong.

I think fascism is a grossly misunderstood thing. People think fascism and they think Hitler. I liked that WF said about how in the Netherlands you're taught about the politics behind fascism and not the people behind it.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not supporting it or defending it. I'm just putting forward the facts. It's also very wrong to say "facists are hard right wing". They oppose socialism and communism, but they also oppose capitalism and free markets. As a strange quote, Mussellini once said, "I very much like Stalin! He killed more communists than I ever could!" :blink:

The best way I've heard fascists described as is "pure athoritarian, hard-centre". They're left-wing economically and socially authoritarian, thus very centrist but in a very hard liner way.
"There is no next time: it's now or never!"

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kartoffel Kanzler
Member Avatar
Paul Emil Rocks
stalin killed way more than hitler and tragically they often consider him the worst of the two when in reality both were evil.

national socialism is actually from the left side of the political spectrum, this book "Liberal Fascism" explains it very well, and you must remember fascism actually made the economies of war torn europe into mega powerhouses, however i nary do support them nor do i disagree with them. The truth of the matter is that fascism is on the left and true right on the political spectrum is much diffrent than national socialism .

now for the next government type: Democracy.

Democracy was originally created by the greeks(well implemented) the idea was not all inclusive however, but it was a start to much, the city states of ancient were often at war, so it was not the most efficient, unless threatened by and outside force.
heh
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mirahge
And you say I have problems!
'Democracy'

This form of government allows free, fair, and open elections for their leaders. There are parties to choose from and the people choose who leads their country. The leader of a democracy is usually called a 'President' or 'Prime Minister', depending on the sub-type of democracy

The Stregnth in this form of government is that it gives the people power to decided how the country is ran (to a point)

The weakness is that the vote is spread to everyone, and it's all equal, so the opinion of a pol sci proffeser is weigthed the same as a complete idiot

"Life continues on, with...or without you" ~Locust Queen, Gears of War 2

RP Charecters:
James Redmen - 28 days later
Pvt Damain Horton - On the Front
Lance Dersan - Cops
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kyleslavia
Member Avatar
Stanley Cup Champ
Kartoffel Kanzler,Jul 15 2008
02:32 PM
Democracy was originally created by the greeks(well implemented) the idea was not all inclusive however, but it was a start to much, the city states of ancient were often at war, so it was not the most efficient, unless threatened by and outside force.

Well democracy was efficient for the Athenians. After the great war with Persia, Athens would become very wealthy. It's also important to note that only Athens and a few more city states had democratic governments. The rest of the city states were dictatorships.
Come and visit Kylesburg City, please clicky!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kartoffel Kanzler
Member Avatar
Paul Emil Rocks
one MAJOR flaw of democracy is it's ability to be run by warmongers, and idiots alike who happen to posses the magic of pursuasion.
heh
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yanopia
Member Avatar
Checking Line Forward
Anarchy would be pure chaos. There would be no government to keep the people under control. There could be like a murder and the person would get away with it. Same thing with what you said, riots would get out of control. There always need to be somebody in charge(hopefully not somebody corrupted). The person in charge is there to keep the people from going out of control. It reminds me of the book "Lord Of The Flies". lol On the island the children are alone so they become savages. Same thing could happen with Anarchy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kartoffel Kanzler
Member Avatar
Paul Emil Rocks
anarchy is horrible for any country, it ruins much. Republic has a good idea but will always have corruption and might always in a stalemate in polics and many could be disunified as a result of that. Fascism had a good idea with patriotism, but unfortunately it is usually led by incompetent and often corrupt leaders. Democracy is probably the best government out there *as of now* if some other type of government worked well then i'd be okay with it, as long as it's non-corrupt and works very well. Im very open minded.
heh
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Almonaster
Member Avatar
Homophonophile
Minister
It sounds like neither of you have bothered to find out what anarchism actually advocates. A quote from Stuart Christie may help get you started.

Quote:
 

Anarchism is both a theory and practice of life. Philosophically, it aims for the maximum accord between the individual, society and nature. Practically, it aims for us to organise and live our lives in such a way as to make politicians, governments, states and their officials superfluous. In an anarchist society, mutually respectful sovereign individuals would be organised in non-coercive relationships within naturally defined communities in which the means of production and distribution are held in common.

"Anarchists are not dreamers obsessed with abstract principles and theoretical constructs . . . Anarchists are well aware that a perfect society cannot be won tomorrow. Indeed, the struggle lasts forever! However, it is the vision that provides the spur to struggle against things as they are, and for things that might be . . .

"Ultimately, only struggle determines outcome, and progress towards a more meaningful community must begin with the will to resist every form of injustice. In general terms, this means challenging all exploitation and defying the legitimacy of all coercive authority. If anarchists have one article of unshakeable faith, it is that, once the habit of deferring to politicians or ideologues is lost, and that of resistance to domination and exploitation acquired, then ordinary people have a capacity to organise every aspect of their lives in their own interests, anywhere and at any time, both freely and fairly




A good starting point on political thought in general can be found here.
You use a mirror to see your face. You use works of art to see your soul. ~ G. B. Shaw

Visit Al's FractAl Gallery

I'm in ur detailz likin' ur sinz. :evil:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kartoffel Kanzler
Member Avatar
Paul Emil Rocks
almonaster, i must respectfully disagree, the human brain is made from past experences from thousands of years ago, humans crave power, and sustinance, and they will do whatever they can to get it. If anarchists really wanted to live without government and with nature and all that, then they'd need to abolish money, all trade, and probably much more, and probably alter the genetic mackup in all of us. Our very genes keep us alive, they tell us what we need like to use a restroom, from our subconcious, and it's an unstopable force once it's in survival mode. Anarchy would create a situation like that, mostly from modern interpretations and past experiences.

for all those syndacitist anarchists out there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADPtfZuOyR4&feature=related
heh
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Niongor
Member Avatar
Giver of the *Hi-5*
Kartoffel Kanzler,Jul 15 2008
06:32 PM
The truth of the matter is that fascism is on the left

No it's not, that's the point I was making before. It's neither left nor right, it's very much a centrist, all be it authoritarian, stand point. Call it "Extreme centrism". Italy and Germany owe their economies to fascism. How ironic that such a blight on Germany's past gave that nation a bright, prosperous and rich future.

As for anarchism, I'll always oppose it. It's a very hypocritical belief system in my view:
Quote:
 
If anarchists have one article of unshakeable faith, it is that, once the habit of deferring to politicians or ideologues is lost, and that of resistance to domination and exploitation acquired, then ordinary people have a capacity to organise every aspect of their lives in their own interests, anywhere and at any time, both freely and fairly

^ That's called liberal democracy, and in my view it's best seen in practice in Iceland and Switzerland. In those two countries the people are not ruled by politicians, but rather the other way round. People decide and organise every single aspect of their lives, from the big national laws to the small local laws, in their own interests and the only reason politicians exist in these countries is to carry that will out.

You may think all democracies exist with this in mind, and that's certainly the dream but the fact is most democracies (like all other forms of government) are corruptable.
"There is no next time: it's now or never!"

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kartoffel Kanzler
Member Avatar
Paul Emil Rocks
i must disagree nationalisation is the main reason why it isn't centrist.
heh
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kyleslavia
Member Avatar
Stanley Cup Champ
Actually, I have to agree with Niongor on this.

First off, Fascists cared very little about the economy. They were more concerned with creating an empire full of brainwashed nationalists then figuring out the little bitty specifics of the economy.

Next, Fascists hated capitalism and socialism, so that pushes them away from the left and the right. Although Fascist governments did nationalize some companies, that doesn't automatically push them to the left. It must also be realized that governments in places like Fascist Italy allowed average citizens to keep their private property and businesses. In fact, even though these governments did nationalize some companies, many of them were returned to the private sector when they were handed over to loyal businessmen.
Come and visit Kylesburg City, please clicky!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kartoffel Kanzler
Member Avatar
Paul Emil Rocks
one branch of fascism national SOCIALISM had much to do with the left. It's name is a clear remark of that. However it can be in the center in some circumstances. but they can be on the left if you dig deeper into their histories and ideologies. Ive read the italian fascist party manifesto and it lookes surprisingly similiar to the democrats of the USA.
heh
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Niongor
Member Avatar
Giver of the *Hi-5*
Kartoffel Kanzler,Jul 16 2008
01:30 PM
i must disagree nationalisation is the main reason why it isn't centrist.

Fascists nationalised public utilities, plumbing, gas, electric, telecommunications and public transport. All other enterprises were left untouched, including media in some cases.

As much as they are nationalisers (thus placing them to the left) they are also nationalists (placing them to the right). National Socialism was just a name, and very few of their policies were ever socialist in nature. Just how the National Front in the UK is actually closer related to communsim than nationalism in terms of its political agenda. A name does not always indicated a party's political stance. Again, I re-state, that fascism is very much an extreme centrist political structure.
"There is no next time: it's now or never!"

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kartoffel Kanzler
Member Avatar
Paul Emil Rocks
nationalism has no political side, and when they nationalised all public utilities doesn't that sound suspiciously socialist?
heh
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Almonaster
Member Avatar
Homophonophile
Minister
You may disagree on whether it is workable by all means, but please do not misrepresent what the anarchists are attempting to achieve. Nonsense like "it's pure chaos" and
Kartoffel Kanzler,Jul 16 2008
01:43 PM
... they'd need to abolish money, all trade, and probably much more, and probably alter the genetic mackup in all of us...


simply demonstrate a lack of understanding.

I would agree with your assessment that a liberal democracy is largely in keeping with anarchist ideals. The major difference being in the coercive power of the state to levy taxes, etc.

Throughout your arguments you make the assumption that people must be forced to do the "right" thing. That is an assumption I utterly reject.


To approach the issue another way, anarchism is not about "no rules", it is about "no rulers". As soon as any individual or group has systematic power over others (except through voluntary consent), then you depart from anarchism.
You use a mirror to see your face. You use works of art to see your soul. ~ G. B. Shaw

Visit Al's FractAl Gallery

I'm in ur detailz likin' ur sinz. :evil:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kartoffel Kanzler
Member Avatar
Paul Emil Rocks
but there couldn't be a military or even police because they'd have power, and if someone broke laws then they wouldn't be punished because the person who punishes them could be viewed as a power figure. What if the police do help out the people, but human nature would soon corrupt the minds of them and soon, there would be a central power. How would millions of people follow laws without any outside force to have boundaries?
heh
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Almonaster
Member Avatar
Homophonophile
Minister
It largely comes back to your belief that external force is necessary.

For instance - if I so desired, I (or ParrrrTay or Omni, or whoever is admin at the time) have the capability to lock down this forum and kick you all off. Cabinet could simply not bother calling elections and just stay on in office. Why do we not do these things? Because they would be in violation of the voluntary code of conduct agreed (over time) by the members of this region. Nothing is forcing us to keep to the constitution other than our own free will.

As part of that agreement, we are given the power to pass regional legislation. We have that power only by virtue of that agreement. We are not a special class or group, merely a set of individuals who have volunteered, and been selected by the members as a whole from among those volunteers, and subject to recall if we don't abide by the rules. The power is not confined to an elite, all citizens have equal status.

(btw: The situation here is somewhat different from an RL liberal democracy in that NS nations can choose their regions. In RL most people have little practical choice over which country and hence political system they "subscribe" to. )

Returning to the more abstract case, you say no military is possible under anarchy. I don't see that as an inherently bad thing, but I see nothing to prevent the formation of a volunteer militia. Even more appropriate would be the agreement within a community that certain individuals could act as peacekeepers. The base-level equality, and community agreement are key, as contrasted to an imposition from "above".

You use a mirror to see your face. You use works of art to see your soul. ~ G. B. Shaw

Visit Al's FractAl Gallery

I'm in ur detailz likin' ur sinz. :evil:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kartoffel Kanzler
Member Avatar
Paul Emil Rocks
not all people are as good a people as canadian admins are. people will always want power when it is real, absolute, and complete. You'd have to have a leader of the militia to cordinate defence wouldn't you? If that man/woman rallied support they could destroy the system. Also how would an anarchist state wage war with a foreign military that isn't in anarchy and is very organized?
heh
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kartoffel Kanzler
Member Avatar
Paul Emil Rocks
new government discussion: im gonna do 2 today, because they are interelated sorta. Technocracy, and Robocracy.

Technocracy in not an entirely bad government, mostly because idiots can't be in charge.
heh
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The Village · Next Topic »
Add Reply