TeenGohan

Feb 7 2012, 03:33 AM

TL;DR, skip to the bottom. Otherwise, brace yourselves for a long post

Anarchy: An anarchy is basically a place without government, authority, or law. Sounds good right?

Pros:
No oppression, no cops to bust you for your weed, you could do what you want on the internet and pirate songs, etc...
And even more, no hierarchy, which means equality for everyone.

Cons:
Who's to stop gangs from beating people up, or stop people from breaking into your house? And typically, anarchies are weaker nations that are taken over by dictators and tyrants, or ravaged by crime.

Let's look back at some anarchies in the past. Perhaps the most primary example would be the state before recorded history in which we were all primitive mud-slinging cavemen. No government, no laws, no hierarchy. If that's not anarchy, I don't know what is. Now, it's not exactly like we know everything about mankind before recorded history, but I think we can agree that no significant advancements in language, science, mathematics, arts and the likes were made before man banded together to create civilizations. This may not be a good example, because it was before we even knew about language and science and whatnot.

Somalia might be a better, more recent example. Catastrophic violence and crime, death, poverty, and general insecurity and chaos. Must I explain it all? I think we can rule out anarchy for now.

Socialism: This is a tougher one to define quickly, but it basically means an economic system that supports the government/state owning and controlling the production and distribution of goods. There's some other stuff, but if you're in this thread reading this, I'd guess you know already.

Pros: Money is distributed more evenly, there is socialized health care, poverty is reduced, and it increases workers' rights.

Cons: More taxes, which in return means it is harder for entrepreneurs to start new companies, poor people usually cannot become rich, there is bigger more centralized government, and some just call communism an extreme form of socialism.

Currently, some examples of socialist nations and nations with socialists ideologies include China, India, Korea, and Vietnam. (note: not all these countries are completely socialist. I'd like the emphasize that I stated with socialist ideologies) Now, when you think of these countries, you don't immediately think of poverty, or third-world country. However, China and Korea are known for being notoriously oppressive. Economically, socialism seems to work for the country as a whole, but may lack in civil liberties.

I'd say the cons outweigh the pros, but socialism can work in the right circumstances.

Capitalism: In capitalism, the country's trade and profit is controlled by private or corporate owners for profit.

Pros: Capitalism provides everyone with the chance to go from rags-to-riches, poor to wealthy, and low class to high class. You are free to make your own choices in the market place. You can earn as much money as you want without having to answer to the government, and capitalism is typically pro-democratic, which I believe is good and I'm not going to derail this topic by talking about why democracy is good. Generally, it gives you the chance to get to the top of the social ladder and influence the market.

Cons: There is a lot of competition, and being an entrepreneur in a capitalist nation means you're just one among thousands of other businesses. There is also a massive gap between the low class and high class, because all the people who get to the top of the social ladder are leaving less money and opportunity for the people below them.

The primary example of capitalism today would be America. Must I explain to you that America is among the world's greatest leading superpowers today? Because it is rather late and I have to go to sleep soon. However, I mentioned the massive gap between the low class and high class, which is why you have millionaires living in the same country as homeless poverty-stricken people.

For the conclusion of capitalism, I'd say it's the most logical form of government so far, but I'll admit I may be partially biased because I live in America.

Communism: Communism is weird because it sound really, really good in theory, but isn't actually in real life. Basically, all property is publicly owned, and everyone is paid according to their needs and abilities. It also aims for a classless society, which we have seen with anarchism.

Pros: You don't have to worry about money, and virtually no unemployment.

Cons: Put simply, is a person going to work if they don't have to worry about money? No goods produced, or distributed.

Some examples of recent communist nations include North Korea (with some socialist ideologies), and Soviet Russia/the Soviet Union. Unless you really don't care about history and world events, you've probably heard of the collapse of the Soviet Union and how oppressive North Korea is. Communism has repeatedly been shown to fail, and North Korea and the Soviet Union are two crowning examples.

Communism fails.

Fascism: Errm, well, I don't want to bash on anyone's political views, but I barely need to write anything about fascism. It's practically synonymous with oppression and totalitarianism.

Fascism fails hard.

One thing, by the way: I am not an expert in in political philosophy or history or politics. Most of this is some quick google searches I did, and stuff I picked up over the years. I most likely got some stuff wrong.

TL;DR

From best form of government to least:
1.)Capitalism
2.)Socialism
3.)Anarchy
4.)Communism
5.)Fascism

"TeenGohan"

 

Anarchy: An anarchy is basically a place without government, authority, or law. Sounds good right?

Pros:
No oppression, no cops to bust you for your weed, you could do what you want on the internet and pirate songs, etc...
And even more, no hierarchy, which means equality for everyone.

Anarchy definitely embraces freedom, but it does not imply financial equality (however it does imply moral equality if that's what you meant). Yet society would probably be a lot more equal than it is now in the absence of intellectual property laws, patents, copyright, monopolization, etc (excellent book concerning the harm IP causes and with no real benefits). A society without government is essentially one which places the future in the hands of the competitive forces/innovation inherent within the free market rather than a small subset who possess all the guns.

Cons:
Who's to stop gangs from beating people up, or stop people from breaking into your house? And typically, anarchies are weaker nations that are taken over by dictators and tyrants, or ravaged by crime.

This is the argument from fear, it is a fallacy. Is it rational to suggest we require the violence of the state to prevent violence? Most criminal behavior can be traced back to an abusive upbringing. Yes, there's no way to guarantee every single child receives an ideal upbringing, but we can definitely do a lot better than we are now. Not to mention a lot of crime wouldn't exist without government regulation (e.g. making certain substances illegal facilitates organized crime). The definition of 'criminal behavior' will forever expand while the state is active, meaning that we're all liable to have our freedoms violated at some point if we haven't already.

Historically, countries tend to invade one another because they wish to take over the existing tax-base. If there is no tax-base then it would be like taking over a swamp as opposed to a farm. Given how expensive launching an offensive already is, I doubt it would be a very wise tactic on the aggressors part to attack a large stateless society, it could even end up ruining them financially. On top of that, a stateless society could still potentially own nuclear weapons.

Let's look back at some anarchies in the past. Perhaps the most primary example would be the state before recorded history in which we were all primitive mud-slinging cavemen. No government, no laws, no hierarchy. If that's not anarchy, I don't know what is. Now, it's not exactly like we know everything about mankind before recorded history, but I think we can agree that no significant advancements in language, science, mathematics, arts and the likes were made before man banded together to create civilizations. This may not be a good example, because it was before we even knew about language and science and whatnot.

Somalia might be a better, more recent example. Catastrophic violence and crime, death, poverty, and general insecurity and chaos. Must I explain it all? I think we can rule out anarchy for now.

Government hierarchy is a persistent scar left over from the age of the 'primitive mud-slinging cavemen', despotism is not anarchy. Somalia is also a very very bad example, it's current situation is the result of a failed military coup, not exactly ideal. It's now basically a conflict between a bunch of warlords and the struggling remnants of previous authority. Somalia is more a scattered oligarchy rather than free-market anarchy.

Socialism: This is a tougher one to define quickly, but it basically means an economic system that supports the government/state owning and controlling the production and distribution of goods. There's some other stuff, but if you're in this thread reading this, I'd guess you know already.

Pros: Money is distributed more evenly, there is socialized health care, poverty is reduced, and it increases workers' rights.

Very much in theory, pretty much all historical instances of socialism (communism, it's exactly the same idea, socialism is just the fancy word young academics like to use to avoid negative stigma) seem to have lead to disaster, achieving the exact opposite of the intended goals. The problem lies in its moral failings and inefficiency of the state. Government does not have the economic incentive or the competitive drive to innovate like a private company would in a free-market setting.

Cons: More taxes, which in return means it is harder for entrepreneurs to start new companies, poor people usually cannot become rich, there is bigger more centralized government, and some just call communism an extreme form of socialism.

You've contradicted 'poverty is reduced' in suggesting stifled class mobility. Indeed, therein lies a problem with socialism, Welfare does not help the poor progress, it creates a permanent underclass dependant on the state.

Currently, some examples of socialist nations and nations with socialists ideologies include China, India, Korea, and Vietnam. (note: not all these countries are completely socialist. I'd like the emphasize that I stated with socialist ideologies) Now, when you think of these countries, you don't immediately think of poverty, or third-world country. However, China and Korea are known for being notoriously oppressive. Economically, socialism seems to work for the country as a whole, but may lack in civil liberties.

Probably best to mention that the apparent economic prosperity of China was the result of adopting free-market/capitalist ideals. Unfortunately, their new regime seems to be moving away from this paradigm because it had a noticeable effect on their tyrannical iron-fist control of the people. When people taste freedom they tend to want more.

I'd say the cons outweigh the pros, but socialism can work in the right circumstances.

I'd say that it could never be sustainable, it seems most attempts at communism don't even last more than 50 years before the inevitable instability kicks in.

Capitalism: In capitalism, the country's trade and profit is controlled by private or corporate owners for profit.

Pros: Capitalism provides everyone with the chance to go from rags-to-riches, poor to wealthy, and low class to high class. You are free to make your own choices in the market place. You can earn as much money as you want without having to answer to the government, and capitalism is typically pro-democratic, which I believe is good and I'm not going to derail this topic by talking about why democracy is good. Generally, it gives you the chance to get to the top of the social ladder and influence the market.

Cons: There is a lot of competition, and being an entrepreneur in a capitalist nation means you're just one among thousands of other businesses. There is also a massive gap between the low class and high class, because all the people who get to the top of the social ladder are leaving less money and opportunity for the people below them.

Let me just say that competition is NOT a con, competition is designed to benefit society as a whole, lack of competition leads to monopolies and the abandonment of innovation. Sure, a few tycoons may profit substantially more if there is no competition, but why should society agree to sustain the undeserving power-hungry minority and at the same time sacrifice technological progression? The primary issue with capitalism under our current system is how widespread the evil of patenting has become (I encourage you to read the link I provided earlier).

The primary example of capitalism today would be America. Must I explain to you that America is among the world's greatest leading superpowers today? Because it is rather late and I have to go to sleep soon. However, I mentioned the massive gap between the low class and high class, which is why you have millionaires living in the same country as homeless poverty-stricken people.

For the conclusion of capitalism, I'd say it's the most logical form of government so far, but I'll admit I may be partially biased because I live in America.

Communism: Communism is weird because it sound really, really good in theory, but isn't actually in real life. Basically, all property is publicly owned, and everyone is paid according to their needs and abilities. It also aims for a classless society, which we have seen with anarchism.

Pros: You don't have to worry about money, and virtually no unemployment.

Cons: Put simply, is a person going to work if they don't have to worry about money? No goods produced, or distributed.

Some examples of recent communist nations include North Korea (with some socialist ideologies), and Soviet Russia/the Soviet Union. Unless you really don't care about history and world events, you've probably heard of the collapse of the Soviet Union and how oppressive North Korea is. Communism has repeatedly been shown to fail, and North Korea and the Soviet Union are two crowning examples.

Communism fails.

Therefore Socialism fails

Fascism: Errm, well, I don't want to bash on anyone's political views, but I barely need to write anything about fascism. It's practically synonymous with oppression and totalitarianism.

Fascism fails hard.

Yep

One thing, by the way: I am not an expert in in political philosophy or history or politics. Most of this is some quick google searches I did, and stuff I picked up over the years. I most likely got some stuff wrong.

TL;DR

From best form of government to least:
1.)Capitalism
2.)Socialism
3.)Anarchy
4.)Communism
5.)Fascism

My rankings are more like:
1.) Anarchy with Capitalism
5.) Everything else.

SirParagon

Feb 8 2012, 11:51 AM

"Teen gohan"

 

copy and paste info...

(If you would like to respond then it's probably best you don't directly quote this, it could get messy.)

I really wouldn't have such a problem with government if it didn't constantly insist on being an exception to the very same objective morality it so brutally tries to enforce.

Quote:

 

Anarchy definitely embraces freedom, but it does not imply financial equality (however it does imply moral equality if that's what you meant). Yet society would probably be a lot more equal than it is now in the absence of intellectual property laws, patents, copyright, monopolization, etc (excellent book concerning the harm IP causes and with no real benefits). A society without government is essentially one which places the future in the hands of the competitive forces/innovation inherent within the free market rather than a small subset who possess all the guns.

Quote:

 

This is the argument from fear, it is a fallacy. Is it rational to suggest we require the violence of the state to prevent violence? Most criminal behavior can be traced back to an abusive upbringing. Yes, there's no way to guarantee every single child receives an ideal upbringing, but we can definitely do a lot better than we are now. Not to mention a lot of crime wouldn't exist without government regulation (e.g. making certain substances illegal facilitates organized crime). The definition of 'criminal behavior' will forever expand while the state is active, meaning that we're all liable to have our freedoms violated at some point if we haven't already.

Quote:

 

Historically, countries tend to invade one another because they wish to take over the existing tax-base. If there is no tax-base then it would be like taking over a swamp as opposed to a farm. Given how expensive launching an offensive already is, I doubt it would be a very wise tactic on the aggressors part to attack a large stateless society, it could even end up ruining them financially. On top of that, a stateless society could still potentially own nuclear weapons.

Quote:

 

Government hierarchy is a persistent scar left over from the age of the 'primitive mud-slinging cavemen', despotism is not anarchy. Somalia is also a very very bad example, it's current situation is the result of a failed military coup, not exactly ideal. It's now basically a conflict between a bunch of warlords and the struggling remnants of previous authority. Somalia is more a scattered oligarchy rather than free-market anarchy.

Quote:

 

Very much in theory, pretty much all historical instances of socialism (communism, it's exactly the same idea, socialism is just the fancy word young academics like to use to avoid negative stigma) seem to have lead to disaster, achieving the exact opposite of the intended goals. The problem lies in its moral failings and inefficiency of the state. Government does not have the economic incentive or the competitive drive to innovate like a private company would in a free-market setting.

Quote:

 

You've contradicted 'poverty is reduced' in suggesting stifled class mobility. Indeed, therein lies a problem with socialism, Welfare does not help the poor progress, it creates a permanent underclass dependant on the state.

Quote:

 

to begin with

Quote:

 

Probably best to mention that the apparent economic prosperity of China was the result of adopting free-market/capitalist ideals. Unfortunately, their new regime seems to be moving away from this paradigm because it had a noticeable effect on their tyrannical iron-fist control of the people. When people taste freedom they tend to want more. I'd say that it could never be sustainable, it seems most attempts at communism don't even last more than 50 years before the inevitable instability kicks in.

Quote:

 

Let me just say that competition is NOT a con, competition is designed to benefit society as a whole, lack of competition leads to monopolies and the abandonment of innovation. Sure, a few tycoons may profit substantially more if there is no competition, but why should society agree to sustain the undeserving power-hungry minority and at the same time sacrifice technological progression? The primary issue with capitalism under our current system is how widespread the evil of patenting has become (I encourage you to read the link I provided earlier).