Is Democracy really the best way to go?

[Sol9000]

Communism is technically ideal. The problem with democracy is there are stupid people who vote on stupid things.

However the problem with Communism is that the leader will always go crazy with power and turn evil and decide he's a god.

Man is inherently evil, so any form of government is bad anyway, and the lack thereof is equally bad. So it doesn't really matter.

Testify *Raises Hand*

 

[Aesir]

This is assuming democratic values though, which is kinda circular. It's like measuring how good tyranny is by how few people are involved in the decision-making process.

A good Tyranny is like you said. Just like a good democracy is decentralizing the power. If we're discussing the merits of success we need to be sure the system we're talking about actually fits the definition

OK, let's make this a bit clearer.

Aesir, I do not think that you can objectively claim that democracy "successfully works". First of all, you've not defined what "successful" and "work" mean in this context.

But I did. If you read my post carefully I clearly outlined it. The success of a democracy is how much the power is decentralized (fairness), and how stable it is. I say our current one is pretty spot on.

What makes democracy successful? The fact that the majority in your country agrees with it?

No you completely missed the point. It's successful because it decentralizes the power and stops runaway majorities from making the rules. You can have a simple majority in this country and get nothing done because even if you have a majority the minority still has say, which is another aspect of success imo. The minority can still voice their opinion and be heard.

The fact that the majority in my country agrees with it? The fact that it simply is the system you were born into, you understand best and are just used to the most? So far, your reasoning has been largely circular.

Explain how it's even remotely circular? My post doesn't even use circular logic. As I said previously. Stability and fairness, make for success. Our government doesn't radically change over night and our nation isn't thrown into chaos. It offers broad rights to every individual. along with decentralizing power to stop the government from being to overbearing. That's success. Can we improve? Absolutely it's not a perfect system but to call it unsuccessful is being really harsh. I should also point out that I use to argue against democracy so your argument that I'm just blindly going along with it is wrong.

You think democracy is successful because more people are involved in the democratic process than in other systems. That's not a qualifying statement and it doesn't show how it is successful.

Yes it does. A successful democracy needs to embrace democratic ideals. Otherwise it's not a democracy at all.

It simply states what democracy is: a system where the majority of people is involved in the democratic process. But it doesn't explain where the "success" is coming from, that you postulate. So I'll ask you again: if democracy is a successful system what is it that makes it more successful than [system X].

It makes more successful because A. it offers stability and B. it offers broad powers to everyone. (decentralizes the power). Of course the counter to this could be powerful people can undermine part b. in which case I would argue there needs to be a powerful watch dog to protect democracy. Which lately has not been the case for us. I would concede that recently our democracy has been failing. However, over all it's worked toward those two criteria. Then again the reason I may view that as successful is because those are things I value.

If that's not good enough then what would qualify as success? in civilization a successful government model should employ stability and broad based rights/powers to all people. Maybe I think this because I grew up around it? Maybe. However, given that so many other nations struggle for the rights we enjoy says something about what we have. Is it perfect? absolutely not. But unlike other systems it can be molded easily.

Historically, I would say that democracy has not proven itself successful. The early attempts at democracy in ancient Greek and Rome have not lasted very long and have been replaced by tyrannies rather quickly.

So because it failed rapidly more than 2000 years ago it'll never work? Talk about giving up to easily.

It is my honest opinion that democracy has already failed in the USA as it could not outpower the ruthless, unconditioned and cynical capitalism that the USA embraces.

In America there's always the struggle between crony capitalism and democracy. At the moment crony capitalism is winning, no argument there. However, in the past democracy has prevailed and flourished. What we need to do is to curb the power capitalism has over the government. Democracy is much like the free market: Without rules it's dangerous, but when properly regulated it's a powerful tool.

As a result the government puts more priority into the interests of large corporations than into its citizens. In this context I'd say that democracy has proven itself unsuccessful - the financial market and the greed for money have more power than the public. Whether it's going to prove successful in Europe remains to be seen but in a lot of countries it either has already failed or never managed to make an impact to begin with.

Because democracy is a living breathing entity. We're seeing it now morph into something bad. Which is not the first time. If we're going to condemn a system to failure because of short term short falls then no system is successful. There's always this struggle where the powerful exploit the weak and use misinformation to destroy opposition. Is that a fault of democracy? maybe. Democracy needs an active watch dog. The problem is culturally we're conditioned to view the media as the watch dog. However, if the past decade is any indication the media has been very ineffective. Does this mean democracy has been unsuccessful? if we view it in short term results? Sure I would argue currently it's failing. But to dismiss the over all success we have seen is not a fair assessment.

Also I would argue that the social democracies of Europe are still a good example. Sweden for instance is still doing really well.

Though all that doesn't mean that I don't think democracy is the right way to go. I think of all systems we've seen so far it's the lesser evil. However, not only do I think that a good democratic system has yet to be established but I'd also say that people generally overrate its potential.

Our current system is pretty close. Like I said earlier. We need to fix the watch dog status, and get money out of politics. Then we should move away from sound bite politics onto more policy based discussions.

Communism is technically ideal. The problem with democracy is there are stupid people who vote on stupid things.

The problem with democracy is it depends on the informed. However with so much disinformation, becoming informed is a full time job. Something most uninformed voters don't have the time for. I already established that this is the fault of the media. Since in a democracy it's their job to be the watch dogs and to call out disinformation when they see it. Which hasn't happened since the late 70s

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I'm not going to respond to every single paragraph, mainly because I agree with most of it. You are right that there's a chance that the democracy in the USA will overpower their own capitalism again. Maybe some EU countries just need more time. Perhaps I'm just too pessimistic about it. It's certainly true that democracy is the system that is best suited for adapting to change or make change even happen in the first place. Nevertheless, I'll maintain that a lot of people overrate democracy as a system and put too much faith into it.

The success of a democracy is how much the power is decentralized (fairness), and how stable it is. I say our current one is pretty spot on.

Pointing this out because that's not what you argued earlier but I agree with it anyway. That's mainly what I was trying to get at because I didn't feel like you made such a clear point earlier [neither did Green Kirby whom I originally questioned, not you]. Now here's a counter-question though: I know I'm sounding overly anti-american again here but wouldn't you agree then that the transition of the theory of a democracy and its practical application in the USA are rather far remote from what you consider ideal? If you'd ask somebody from outside of the USA they'd probably tell you that the US president has too much power as he is not only the head of the state but also the head of the government. Wouldn't you say that's a contradiction to what you consider one of democracy's most important traits - decentralization?

Explain how it's even remotely circular? My post doesn't even use circular logic.

Well, let's look at your own explanation for it then:

Yes it does. A successful democracy needs to embrace democratic ideals. Otherwise it's not a democracy at all.

This quote pretty much points out the whole circular logic in your explanations earlier. A democracy needs to embrace democratic ideals otherwise it wouldn't be a democracy at all. That explains why a democracy is a democracy: because it embraces democratic values. But it doesn't explain why democracy is "good" because embracing democratic values is the condition sine qua non of democracy. It's like saying that tyranny is good because it has a tyrant. Well duh. If it didn't have a tyrant it wouldn't be a tyranny in the first place. It's not a qualifying statement but a necessary condition.
But I don't really feel like dragging this point out much longer anyway since you've already answered the things I wanted to know about. Decentralization is really the key term here and I'll probably think through this concept for myself quite a while.

 

[Aesir]

Pointing this out because that's not what you argued earlier but I agree with it anyway.

You might want to go back to my post.

1. Does it produce a stable government?
2. How many people are eligible to participate in the democratic process.
Being eligible to participate in the democratic process is another way of saying decentralizing power. I never deviated from the thoughts of my post I only changed the terminology to better illustrate what I meant.

That's mainly what I was trying to get at because I didn't feel like you made such a clear point earlier [neither did Green Kirby whom I originally questioned, not you]. Now here's a counter-question though: I know I'm sounding overly anti-american again here but wouldn't you agree then that the transition of the theory of a democracy and its practical application in the USA are rather far remote from what you consider ideal? If you'd ask somebody from outside of the USA they'd probably tell you that the US president has too much power as he is not only the head of the state but also the head of the government. Wouldn't you say that's a contradiction to what you consider one of democracy's most important traits - decentralization?

I wouldn't for the simple fact we can change the government every 2 years. The president surely has more power than he use to, but I wouldn't say he has to much. Congress can block him from doing almost anything. (Hell it took 4 years to get some his judges appointed.)
The thing with America is we elect democratically but our government functions like a republic. Representatives go to Washington and vote our interests historically this has been accurate. I know I'm rambling and I need to put this together in a point so here it goes. The point of a republic is to stop mob rule which it does. You need to get a lot more votes to get anything done because of checks and balance's. The presidents power is roughly equal with the other two branches so in essence there can't be anything drastically done because the other branches will stop it. (In theory, and in many cases in practice as well.) This might seem like a contradiction, but I don't think it is because we decide what the government represents. Every 2 years we have a way to shape the nature of the government.

This quote pretty much points out the whole circular logic in your explanations earlier. A democracy needs to embrace democratic ideals otherwise it wouldn't be a democracy at all. That explains why a democracy is a democracy: because it embraces democratic values. But it doesn't explain why democracy is "good" because embracing democratic values is the condition sine qua non of democracy. It's like saying that tyranny is good because it has a tyrant. Well duh. If it didn't have a tyrant it wouldn't be a tyranny in the first place. It's not a qualifying statement but a necessary condition.
But I don't really feel like dragging this point out much longer anyway since you've already answered the things I wanted to know about. Decentralization is really the key term here and I'll probably think through this concept for myself quite a while.

I think you're confusing something.

There are a lot of "failed" democracies because they don't embrace democratic ideals because they're loaded with corruption. In order to even ask the question if X state is a good democracy; You need to make sure if the democracy in question is even a good example of one.

That's not circular: If x state isn't a democracy how can we even ask the question if it's a successful one? A successful one needs to embrace democratic ideals first then we can start getting into details about what it does ect... I know it sounds redundant but it prevents people from grabbing BS examples as anecdotal evidence.

In the end it comes down to self-determination.

 

[Battlecow]

Man, Gheb, you're sitting typing proof that people will believe anything if their existence consists solely of bouncing around the most liberal corners of the internet day in and day out, feeding their minds exclusively on the greasy products of who-can-be-the-most-radical circlejerks. Get an education, son. Oh wait, those only exist in America.

I'll ask you again: What in the everliving **** has you convinced that "capitalism" as a system (when you say that I assume that you mean some sort of political corruption arising from lobbying by big business) has "overpowered democracy"? Do you have any sort of evidence for corporations paying for votes not to be counted? Perhaps you take an extraordinary amount of issue with the relatively minor legislative accomplishments of paid lobbyists? At any rate, it's all too apparent that you lack any sense of historical perspective if America's current status quo is "broken" in your eyes.

 

[Aesir]

Man, Gheb, you're sitting typing proof that people will believe anything if their existence consists solely of bouncing around the most liberal corners of the internet day in and day out, feeding their minds exclusively on the greasy products of who-can-be-the-most-radical circlejerks. Get an education, son. Oh wait, those only exist in America.

I'll ask you again: What in the everliving **** has you convinced that "capitalism" as a system (when you say that I assume that you mean some sort of political corruption arising from lobbying by big business) has "overpowered democracy"? Do you have any sort of evidence for corporations paying for votes not to be counted? Perhaps you take an extraordinary amount of issue with the relatively minor legislative accomplishments of paid lobbyists? At any rate, it's all too apparent that you lack any sense of historical perspective if America's current status quo is "broken" in your eyes.

Actually the amount of money pored into elections since 2010 has increased exponentially indicating that corporate influences are at an all time high. Calling it corruption might be a stretch but it borders on it.

 

[Battlecow]

I mean yes there is corporate money in politics, and I'll believe you when you say that it's more than there has been in the past. Tell me again how that means that the system is broken? I mean, corporate influences on politics are a problem but it's laughable to say that somehow democracy "broke" without us knowing it in between 2010 and today.

 

[Deleted member]

Well it truly is a complicated subject.

Is Democracy the best way to go for humanity? That's debatable. Are our current political and economic models the ideal for humanity. I think our current problems indicate otherwise.

Personally, I feel a Democratic system and a Capitalist economy do not work well together. Simply because of how they function. Capitalism is built around a Darwinist premise of those with the most cunning and skill (and connections) are the ones that get ahead in life. It is an egocentric Dog-Eat-Dog system that is focused on the rapid consumption of resources, with little long-term future vision, and little regard for the community. Then, if we look at Democracy, the entire foundation of the political model is that of "Power to the People." Where even the poorest and least educated have equal representation. So clearly when one blends this concept with the egotistical nature of Capitalism, you create a strange paradox. Ideally, the best way to have Democracy TRULY function, is by combining it with a community driven political model. One which caters to a slow and stable growth, while accounting for the well-being of all individuals. Indeed, I am referring to Marxist Communism. Lets not forget that Capitalism itself is also a rather new economic model that was born around the same time as Communism (the British Industrial Revolution of the 1800's). So Capitalism is no way a staple of Human society (modern society yes, but there have been other strong and stable civilizations in history that were devoid of such economic model), and in order for humanity to further advance, a more stable economic model must be implemented.

However, this brings about other interesting questions. As stated in the OP, is Democracy REALLY the ideal. As I said, that's very debatable. Is it really alright to allow everyone a legal right to vote? I'm personally inclined to say "No." In a society where most people are only concerned with themselves, and not the world around them it would be ideal to require people to acquire a "Voting Licence," similar to a Drivers Licence, if you pass a culture, history, and general knowledge exam, you are endowed with the right to vote. However, as already stated in this thread, ignorance can exist with education. However, I believe it's fair to say that it is less likely to do so, and this would at least weed out all the imbeciles.

Ultimately, a revolution is necessary. Some sort of ideological revolution that will change the way we manage our world. I believe that is clear.

One thing is certain though. The problem lies not so much in the economic and political models we use. But in man himself. Corruption is seen across ALL levels of modern society. Man seeks to benefit himself over others. We need to change our mind state, and shift our focus on the benefit not to ourselves, but towards the entire global community.

On the other hand, technology is rapidly advancing, to the point where it is truly viable to expect human-like AI within the next 30 or so years (assuming current scientific theories are correct). This is where I believe the ideal model for humanity stands. No matter the political model, be it democracy, monarchy, etc... Power corrupts man. Any man, no matter how good-hearted and honest you may be, with enough temptation and the right circumstances, man will succumb to sin and deceit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBmJay_qdNc). Therefore, in my opinion, the ideal model lies with machine. It may sound far-fetched, and even like science fiction. But ideally, the best model to ensure the proper survival of humanity is to have a machine rule over man. A machine programmed to administrate and govern the laws of mankind with a Communist Economic model. However, how we implement such a system, and if it will even work is a whole debate onto itself, on that no longer deals with Politics and economy, but one that deals with the nature of Artificial Intelligence. Not to mention, there is also the question, of how we establish such a system on a global scale, clearly a radical change is needed to shock the world into change is necessary.

Either way, as hopeless as current times and as bleak as the future may seem. I still hold hope. Our current path and the changes that have been happening recently seem to be leading in that direction, however, only time will tell what path we ultimately take.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Personally, I feel a Democratic system and a Capitalist economy do not work well together. Simply because of how they function. Capitalism is built around a Darwinist premise of those with the most cunning and skill (and connections) are the ones that get ahead in life. It is an egocentric Dog-Eat-Dog system that is focused on the rapid consumption of resources, with little long-term future vision, and little regard for the community. Then, if we look at Democracy, the entire foundation of the political model is that of "Power to the People." Where even the poorest and least educated have equal representation. So clearly when one blends this concept with the egotistical nature of Capitalism, you create a strange paradox. Ideally, the best way to have Democracy TRULY function, is by combining it with a community driven political model. One which caters to a slow and stable growth, while accounting for the well-being of all individuals. Indeed, I am referring to Marxist Communism. Lets not forget that Capitalism itself is also a rather new economic model that was born around the same time as Communism (the British Industrial Revolution of the 1800's). So Capitalism is no way a staple of Human society (modern society yes, but there have been other strong and stable civilizations in history that were devoid of such economic model), and in order for humanity to further advance, a more stable economic model must be implemented.

This is the best paragraph I've ever read in the DH. I still strongly disagree with any measure to restrict franchise though.

 

[Deleted member]

I can see why you would disagree with that, but the biggest problem with our current society is that people simply don't care. They don't care about education, they don't care about culture, they don't care about others, they simply live to fulfill their personal desires. I can't help but be reminded of Huxley's Brave New World. It's made even worse by the fact that these sort of people tend to have very strong, very biased outlooks on topics. Views that they will vehemently defend despite having little to no knowledge on the subject.

This begs the question then. Should these people be allowed to vote? I understand the implications of limiting suffrage, but it wasn't for everyone when the constitution was first made, non-property owners, women and slaves couldn't vote originally. However, that clearly isn't fair, but if you earn the right to vote, then perhaps things could be more balanced. There is not excuse for ignorance when you have the world at your fingertips with the internet.

I guess, restricting voting rights is my attempt at motivating people to actually CARE about the world we live in, the decisions we make, AND their consequences.

But, I'm trying to find the best answer myself as well, it truly is a complicated matter. It's just, at the moment, with my current knowledge, it seems like a favorable outcome.

Either that, or we wait for trans-humanism to do away with stupidity.

 

[Kal]

The notion that the biggest problem is ambivalence is facile and asinine.

 

[Battlecow]

Well it truly is a complicated subject.

Is Democracy the best way to go for humanity? That's debatable. Are our current political and economic models the ideal for humanity. I think our current problems indicate otherwise.

Personally, I feel a Democratic system and a Capitalist economy do not work well together. Simply because of how they function. Capitalism is built around a Darwinist premise of those with the most cunning and skill (and connections) are the ones that get ahead in life. It is an egocentric Dog-Eat-Dog system that is focused on the rapid consumption of resources, with little long-term future vision, and little regard for the community. Then, if we look at Democracy, the entire foundation of the political model is that of "Power to the People." Where even the poorest and least educated have equal representation. So clearly when one blends this concept with the egotistical nature of Capitalism, you create a strange paradox. Ideally, the best way to have Democracy TRULY function, is by combining it with a community driven political model. One which caters to a slow and stable growth, while accounting for the well-being of all individuals. Indeed, I am referring to Marxist Communism. Lets not forget that Capitalism itself is also a rather new economic model that was born around the same time as Communism (the British Industrial Revolution of the 1800's). So Capitalism is no way a staple of Human society (modern society yes, but there have been other strong and stable civilizations in history that were devoid of such economic model), and in order for humanity to further advance, a more stable economic model must be implemented.

However, this brings about other interesting questions. As stated in the OP, is Democracy REALLY the ideal. As I said, that's very debatable. Is it really alright to allow everyone a legal right to vote? I'm personally inclined to say "No." In a society where most people are only concerned with themselves, and not the world around them it would be ideal to require people to acquire a "Voting Licence," similar to a Drivers Licence, if you pass a culture, history, and general knowledge exam, you are endowed with the right to vote. However, as already stated in this thread, ignorance can exist with education. However, I believe it's fair to say that it is less likely to do so, and this would at least weed out all the imbeciles.

Ultimately, a revolution is necessary. Some sort of ideological revolution that will change the way we manage our world. I believe that is clear.

One thing is certain though. The problem lies not so much in the economic and political models we use. But in man himself. Corruption is seen across ALL levels of modern society. Man seeks to benefit himself over others. We need to change our mind state, and shift our focus on the benefit not to ourselves, but towards the entire global community.

On the other hand, technology is rapidly advancing, to the point where it is truly viable to expect human-like AI within the next 30 or so years (assuming current scientific theories are correct). This is where I believe the ideal model for humanity stands. No matter the political model, be it democracy, monarchy, etc... Power corrupts man. Any man, no matter how good-hearted and honest you may be, with enough temptation and the right circumstances, man will succumb to sin and deceit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBmJay_qdNc). Therefore, in my opinion, the ideal model lies with machine. It may sound far-fetched, and even like science fiction. But ideally, the best model to ensure the proper survival of humanity is to have a machine rule over man. A machine programmed to administrate and govern the laws of mankind with a Communist Economic model. However, how we implement such a system, and if it will even work is a whole debate onto itself, on that no longer deals with Politics and economy, but one that deals with the nature of Artificial Intelligence. Not to mention, there is also the question, of how we establish such a system on a global scale, clearly a radical change is needed to shock the world into change is necessary.

Either way, as hopeless as current times and as bleak as the future may seem. I still hold hope. Our current path and the changes that have been happening recently seem to be leading in that direction, however, only time will tell what path we ultimately take.

Come down to earth, kid.

Things are more complex than you think they are. It's not just you, your pod-people-identical school buddies, and a bunch of idiots fumbling around in the dark.

That may seem like some sort of issue-dodge or platitude, but I mean it sincerely and I'll try to support it.

Your bit about the relationship between capitalism and democracy, for example. Characterizing capitalism as "egocentric" and democracy as "egalitarian" might seem like a very cutting-edge to you, and the fact that you wrote a whole paragraph about it might seem in-depth to members of the smashboards debate hall, but there are very smart men who have done years of work on that ****. Lots and lots of pages. Think about it a little; you might just as easily say that since everyone participates in western capitalism it's "democratic" or that since it elevates the individual it meshes well with democracy, which gives power and choice to the individual. Both would be to some degree correct, but you're oversimplifying the issue.

We can put ourselves above the petty humans and work out, on paper, the "perfect" system in a few paragraphs, coming to the conclusion that marxist communism is where it's at. People did that. Marx did it (granted, at a much greater length than a few paragraphs--my head still hurts from forging through Capital). Or we could acknowledge that humans, like the universe, are too complicated for a mathematically perfect solution and observe that communism has always failed and democracy and capitalism, hand in hand, have provided for ALL of the major advances (and they are myriad) of modernity.

 

[Deleted member]

Come down to earth, kid.

Things are more complex than you think they are. It's not just you, your pod-people-identical school buddies, and a bunch of idiots fumbling around in the dark.

That may seem like some sort of issue-dodge or platitude, but I mean it sincerely and I'll try to support it.

Your bit about the relationship between capitalism and democracy, for example. Characterizing capitalism as "egocentric" and democracy as "egalitarian" might seem like a very cutting-edge to you, and the fact that you wrote a whole paragraph about it might seem in-depth to members of the smashboards debate hall, but there are very smart men who have done years of work on that ****. Lots and lots of pages. Think about it a little; you might just as easily say that since everyone participates in western capitalism it's "democratic" or that since it elevates the individual it meshes well with democracy, which gives power and choice to the individual. Both would be to some degree correct, but you're oversimplifying the issue.

We can put ourselves above the petty humans and work out, on paper, the "perfect" system in a few paragraphs, coming to the conclusion that marxist communism is where it's at. People did that. Marx did it (granted, at a much greater length than a few paragraphs--my head still hurts from forging through Capital). Or we could acknowledge that humans, like the universe, are too complicated for a mathematically perfect solution and observe that communism has always failed and democracy and capitalism, hand in hand, have provided for ALL of the major advances (and they are myriad) of modernity.

Woah now, no need to be so defensive, lets have a friendly and civil discussion shall we?

Anyway, I don't claim to KNOW the answer, everyday I try to learn new things and elaborate my personal point of view, that's the reason I posted my ideas and theories ITT, to give myself the opportunity to learn by seeing what is fundamentally wrong with what I believe.

I understand the notion that "Democracy may not be the best, but it's what we got." On paper, just about ANYTHING could work, I'm aware of that. But that is no reason to simply forego other alternatives. Whether humanity decides to continue to use a democratic system or not in the future, shall be seen, it does indeed have its flaws and consequences, but like any political system, it's not the system that's flawed, it's man himself. My questioning "should everyone be allowed to vote" is not a proposition, merely a thought exercise (hence the reason I extrapolate toward a future alternative where machines dominate our government). Of course things are much more complex than I make them out to be, but sometimes, even the most complicated puzzles have simple root origins. By searching for the root of the problem, one can arrive at a worthwhile solution.

After reading previous posts of yours I understand that you are very much so set against Communism. I'm not saying it's the best alternative, but if we put the future survival of the human race on the line, is Capitalism really the best method? Say what you want, we cannot continue to use a system that causes such a rapid consumption of resources for more than 200 years if we expect to survive. As it stands now, we're on a technological race against the clock.

 

[Battlecow]

That's a good response

I maintain that sweeping general categorizations like "communism is egalitarian" are useless in a discussion as practical as this one

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

It is interesting that there was actually an anarchist province in the Ukraine during the Russian Civil War that functioned for 3 years. Perhaps this shows that Anarchism is actually more implementable than we originally thought.

 

[Deleted member]

It is interesting that there was actually an anarchist province in the Ukraine during the Russian Civil War that functioned for 3 years. Perhaps this shows that Anarchism is actually more implementable than we originally thought.

I don't think true Anarchy could ever work because it is human nature to want to be better than others.

Check this video out to see what mean:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBmJay_qdNc

Not to mention it is very naive to extrapolate results from a small population to a large one. In my opinion, the reason it worked was because the province was small enough for everyone to know one an other, and thus have a self-regulating society. If you look at the modern world many people live in cities that hold millions of people and every day they meet or rather come across new people they've never met before. There is little rapport and empathy for others. If you try to apply anarchy to a large city such as say... San Francisco, Paris or Madrid, you'd get CHAOS.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I don't think true Anarchy could ever work because it is human nature to want to be better than others.

Check this video out to see what mean:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBmJay_qdNc

Not to mention it is very naive to extrapolate results from a small population to a large one. In my opinion, the reason it worked was because the province was small enough for everyone to know one an other, and thus have a self-regulating society. If you look at the modern world many people live in cities that hold millions of people and every day they meet or rather come across new people they've never met before. There is little rapport and empathy for others. If you try to apply anarchy to a large city such as say... San Francisco, Paris or Madrid, you'd get CHAOS.

The population of the place was 7 million. I think there was some kind of police force as the article talked about outlawing certain organisations such as the Russian secret police.

 

[FirestormNeos]

Well it's certainly not the worst option on the planet. *looks at anarchy*