[Theconomist]

So I wrote an article today about the best political systems. ( http://braincook.wordpress.com/2010/...tical-systems/ )

I argued that meritocracy(not technically a political system but still very interesting),benevolent monarchy and fascism are the best political systems.
I'd love to see what you guys would say about your ideal political system and why you prefer it.

[Rhadamanthus]

A Nozickian night-watchman state which respects people's natural rights in a deontological context.

Btw in regards to your blog, I'm not sure you understand that when you say fascism 'reduced unemployment' and so on that you actually have to provide evidence for it.

[AnarchistNutter]

A system dependent upon autonomous workers' communes which organise the distribution of labour, where every citizen has an equal say in its management and where every worker receives the full benefit of his labour. Prisons will be replaced by rehabilitation, exile and capital punishment, governments will be replaced by communes, capitalism will be replace with communism and democracy will be replaced by free association. Every individual has complete liberty to pursue their own ends and where basic services such as national health, education, etc. are free for all.

[Human After All]

(Original post by AnarchistNutter)
A system dependent upon autonomous workers' communes which organise the distribution of labour, where every citizen has an equal say in its management and where every worker receives the full benefit of his labour. Prisons will be replaced by rehabilitation, exile and capital punishment, governments will be replaced by communes, capitalism will be replace with communism and democracy will be replaced by free association. Every individual has complete liberty to pursue their own ends and where basic services such as national health, education, etc. are free for all.

How would education be regulated? Morality, ethics and social harmony can all be contested freely but in the dynamics of society how will this become stable? People could mistake a means for an end and vice versa. An example of this is War, whereby the maximum power of the state* is lit with disregard for the people and their opinions.(*this is a capitalist model state)

[AnarchistNutter]

(Original post by Human After All)
How would education be regulated?

Communes manage it. Communes are voluntary organisations organised by society and thus every citizen has an equal say. Therefore every citizen would have an equal say in the organisation of education (if they wanted it).

Morality, ethics and social harmony can all be contested freely but in the dynamics of society how will this become stable?

The most important moral code is to not harm others. Rights do not exist because members of government wrote them down on a piece of paper: rather, historically, we have had to force the government to allow us with rights where any attempt to oppose this is met with violent resistance.

People could mistake a means for an end and vice versa.

I don't kno what you mean here.

An example of this is War, whereby the maximum power of the state* is lit with disregard for the people and their opinions.(*this is a capitalist model state)

Well, yes, but then I oppose the state.

[lovely_me]

Anarchy. When there are 'political systems', there is no freedom.

[adam_zed]

Where the politically ignorant dont get to vote, ie below:

(Original post by Indigenous Scoti)
And you are nothing but a far left wing, uber liberal psycho.

[AnarchistNutter]

(Original post by lovely_me)
Anarchy. When there are 'political systems', there is no freedom.

We have another one! Tell me: are you a social anarchist or an "anarcho-capitalist"?

(Original post by Theconomist)
So I wrote an article today about the best political systems. ( http://braincook.wordpress.com/2010/...tical-systems/ )

I argued that meritocracy(not technically a political system but still very interesting),benevolent monarchy and fascism are the best political systems.
I'd love to see what you guys would say about your ideal political system and why you prefer it.

My gosh, it is people like you that drive me closer to anarchism!

[member398873]

Communism, that is- if the whole world was free from greed and happy to work together towards the greater good... Not going to happen though, is it?!

[Theconomist]

(Original post by lechaton-x)
Communism, that is- if the whole world was free from greed and happy to work together towards the greater good... Not going to happen though, is it?!

Due to human nature no

[CatatonicStupor]

Libertarian minarchism. (Essentially a nightwatchman state)

[Oswy]

A system where everyone's needs are met and everyone's productive and creative energies are maximised in a spirit of equality, mutual support and cooperation. A system where there is no private property, where environmental sustainability is prioritised. A society where there is no hunger, there is no greed and every child learns to read. I bet that's how Vulcans live

[Human After All]

(Original post by AnarchistNutter)
The most important moral code is to not harm others. Rights do not exist because members of government wrote them down on a piece of paper: rather, historically, we have had to force the government to allow us with rights where any attempt to oppose this is met with violent resistance.



I don't kno what you mean here

The communes idea is plausible, however I never mentioned rights, I said "morality". That is significant if we look from a relative perspective treating others as ends is by definition giving value to humanity. (Instead of abusing it and others.)

[AnarchistNutter]

(Original post by Human After All)
The communes idea is plausible, however I never mentioned rights, I said "morality". That is significant if we look from a relative perspective treating others as ends is by definition giving value to humanity. (Instead of abusing it and others.)

Well you will have to excuse me for not being very philosophically intelligent but communes could form their own "moral" beliefs but rights would exist throughout.

[Human After All]

(Original post by AnarchistNutter)
Well you will have to excuse me for not being very philosophically intelligent but communes could form their own "moral" beliefs but rights would exist throughout.

well, I hope this communes has an idea which is prospectively progressive and does not hinder the potentiality of specific individuals in society. You mentioned harm (assuming only physical), I do not see how harm could be prevented by those that do not see the anarchists vision of : prosperity through harmony.

Are the communes a force?

[AnarchistNutter]

(Original post by Human After All)
well, I hope this communes has an idea which is prospectively progressive and does not hinder the potentiality of specific individuals in society. You mentioned harm (assuming only physical), I do not see how harm could be prevented by those that do not see the anarchists vision of : prosperity through harmony.

There is also individualist anarchism but most anarchists place a stress upon individualism. Individuals may freely co-operate (or decide not to co-operate) with communes as they desire. You say those who disagree with anarchism would cause harm but part of being in anarchism is that they may choose to lead the life that they may desire. Of course they cannot harm others (society will intervene here via the utilisation of militia - voluntary citizens' armies - organised by communes) but otherwise they have complete liberty.

Are the communes a force?

Tbh, I don't really understand why everyone are always so quick to describe voluntary, worker organised communes where everyone has an equal access to management as being "a force" or "coercive" or whatever but giant monopolies and government are ok. I suppose you can call them a force but they merely exist to organise distribution of labour and protect human rights and they are, as I stated, directly democratic (everyone can manage them).

[Human After All]

(Original post by AnarchistNutter)


Tbh, I don't really understand why everyone are always so quick to describe voluntary, worker organised communes where everyone has an equal access to management as being "a force" or "coercive" or whatever but giant monopolies and government are ok. I suppose you can call them a force but they merely exist to organise distribution of labour and protect human rights and they are, as I stated, directly democratic (everyone can manage them).

You denied human rights before. There must be something socially accepted as a force (not coercive) one which regulates and manages with the will of the people. I could live in an anarchistic society but I just don't see how a hierarchy could just crumble away.

[LawBore]

Anarchism (ideally). I won't say Anarcho-capitalism because I think that would be the natural way an anarchic society with no government intervention would drift.

[Beneb]

Can we have robots?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture
http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm

[AnarchistNutter]

(Original post by Human After All)
You denied human rights before.

When?

There must be something socially accepted as a force (not coercive) one which regulates and manages with the will of the people. I could live in an anarchistic society but I just don't see how a hierarchy could just crumble away.

Communes would provide regulation. This isn't a hierarchy though because everyone has equal political and economic power.