Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

New Forms of Government

Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 6:00:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Reversion to Government Support from Anarchy
I used to be an anarchist because I thought that any chaos that may arise from anarchy would be preferable to state sponsored tyranny. Of course, the problem with anarchy is that humans naturally band together, so you may have eliminated an official form of tyranny, but you're in for just as much a rough ride since multiple gangs and factions will rise up to take power in order to protect self interest. And without any governing body limiting the actions of these groups, they may resort to violence to obtain power and establish their own, usually dictatorial, rule. So, you find yourself back to square one. It is for that reason that setting up an anarchy is self-defeating-- it's no more a solution to the problem of government than suicide is a solution to the problem of suffering.

A lot of well meaning people want anarchy, totally glossing over the fact that it is simply not a solution compatible with the nature of humans (at least in their current form) and thus completely unworkable. So, that leaves the ex-anarchist with a couple options: either come up with a new form of government that somehow avoids the flaws of current and past governments or revert to the least tyrannical current option (I guess that's where you get the bulk of your libertarians from).

The latter option is pretty unappealing if you ask me-- it's no fun to simply settle for what some other dude put together. So let's try to make up new ones ourselves, I already have 2 suggestions:

Suggestion 1: The Literal Nanny State
This form of government focuses solely on regulating child care and reproduction. Why? Because the only reason we need government is to keep ourselves secure. Security is threatened by the actions of other people. The actions of other people is controlled by their behavior. Their behavior is influenced by environment (nurture) and genetics (nature). Bad environment (abusive family, poverty, etc.) and/or bad genetics (for example, low levels of monoamine oxidase A due to genetic malformity, which causes violent behavior) will create a "bad" person who will threaten the security of others. Good environment (loving people, a non-polluted, safe neighborhood, good education, etc.) and good genetics (no genetic predispositions to insanity, addiction, low IQ, etc.) will create a harmonious person. If you could prevent bad environment and bad genetics on a society wide scale, then you will end up with a harmonious population with little need for police, criminal courts, jails, military (if implemented world wide), welfare (community solidarity and charity could do the trick), or big government. In fact, if done correctly, the government would be so small to the point where the only program necessary is the child care/designer baby program.

My proposal for how the "nurture" part will be done is mostly outlined here: http://www.debate.org.... Though as a note, I have read some studies that show that biological parents are the least likely to abuse their children, and if that is so then you would administer the Parental Licensing Exam before couples are expecting a child so as to weed out those who are unfit to be biological parents and let those who are fit have their own children (this could cause some population problems...).

Nature or genetics will be handled by geneticists specializing in genetic engineering and "designer babies". People who are genetically unfit will not necessarily be restricted from reproducing if they are otherwise fit parents, but will be required to have their children engineered to meet a genetic health standard. What this standard is and how the scientists will pull it off is honestly beyond me at this point.

Proposal 2: Individual Anarchy
Think of every big evil that you can think of that was committed in the past-- more often than not, the evils will not have been committed by some lone wolf, but by a gang, government, cartel, political group, corporation, etc. Groups are capable of much greater evil than individuals. Government is an example of a group, so if groups are more potentially evil than individuals, then it makes no sense for government to control individuals. Rather it should be the other way around. Individuals, the inherently more benign of the two, should control governments and other groups. Only people unaffiliated with groups would be able to vote-- "independent" is no longer a voting option, it is a requirement.

One of the failures of anarchy, as stated before, was that there was no control over the actions of political groups and gangs to obtain power for themselves. This cannot happen if the power is with individuals alone.

Some issues relevant to this form of government, though, is that there is 1. the possibility of mob rule and 2. the possibility of "individuals" having deals to favor certain groups/businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, those were the two I've come up with so far, what say you?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 6:50:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 6:00:36 PM, Harper wrote:
Reversion to Government Support from Anarchy
I used to be an anarchist because I thought that any chaos that may arise from anarchy would be preferable to state sponsored tyranny. Of course, the problem with anarchy is that humans naturally band together, so you may have eliminated an official form of tyranny, but you're in for just as much a rough ride since multiple gangs and factions will rise up to take power in order to protect self interest. And without any governing body limiting the actions of these groups, they may resort to violence to obtain power and establish their own, usually dictatorial, rule. So, you find yourself back to square one. It is for that reason that setting up an anarchy is self-defeating-- it's no more a solution to the problem of government than suicide is a solution to the problem of suffering.

A lot of well meaning people want anarchy, totally glossing over the fact that it is simply not a solution compatible with the nature of humans (at least in their current form) and thus completely unworkable. So, that leaves the ex-anarchist with a couple options: either come up with a new form of government that somehow avoids the flaws of current and past governments or revert to the least tyrannical current option (I guess that's where you get the bulk of your libertarians from).

The latter option is pretty unappealing if you ask me-- it's no fun to simply settle for what some other dude put together. So let's try to make up new ones ourselves, I already have 2 suggestions:

Suggestion 1: The Literal Nanny State
This form of government focuses solely on regulating child care and reproduction. Why? Because the only reason we need government is to keep ourselves secure. Security is threatened by the actions of other people. The actions of other people is controlled by their behavior. Their behavior is influenced by environment (nurture) and genetics (nature). Bad environment (abusive family, poverty, etc.) and/or bad genetics (for example, low levels of monoamine oxidase A due to genetic malformity, which causes violent behavior) will create a "bad" person who will threaten the security of others. Good environment (loving people, a non-polluted, safe neighborhood, good education, etc.) and good genetics (no genetic predispositions to insanity, addiction, low IQ, etc.) will create a harmonious person. If you could prevent bad environment and bad genetics on a society wide scale, then you will end up with a harmonious population with little need for police, criminal courts, jails, military (if implemented world wide), welfare (community solidarity and charity could do the trick), or big government. In fact, if done correctly, the government would be so small to the point where the only program necessary is the child care/designer baby program.

My proposal for how the "nurture" part will be done is mostly outlined here: http://www.debate.org.... Though as a note, I have read some studies that show that biological parents are the least likely to abuse their children, and if that is so then you would administer the Parental Licensing Exam before couples are expecting a child so as to weed out those who are unfit to be biological parents and let those who are fit have their own children (this could cause some population problems...).

Nature or genetics will be handled by geneticists specializing in genetic engineering and "designer babies". People who are genetically unfit will not necessarily be restricted from reproducing if they are otherwise fit parents, but will be required to have their children engineered to meet a genetic health standard. What this standard is and how the scientists will pull it off is honestly beyond me at this point.

Proposal 2: Individual Anarchy
Think of every big evil that you can think of that was committed in the past-- more often than not, the evils will not have been committed by some lone wolf, but by a gang, government, cartel, political group, corporation, etc. Groups are capable of much greater evil than individuals. Government is an example of a group, so if groups are more potentially evil than individuals, then it makes no sense for government to control individuals. Rather it should be the other way around. Individuals, the inherently more benign of the two, should control governments and other groups. Only people unaffiliated with groups would be able to vote-- "independent" is no longer a voting option, it is a requirement.

One of the failures of anarchy, as stated before, was that there was no control over the actions of political groups and gangs to obtain power for themselves. This cannot happen if the power is with individuals alone.

Some issues relevant to this form of government, though, is that there is 1. the possibility of mob rule and 2. the possibility of "individuals" having deals to favor certain groups/businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, those were the two I've come up with so far, what say you?

I think that Anarchy can work if good people can prevent people with evil intent from successfully acting on their destructive desires.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 6:56:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 6:50:15 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/14/2015 6:00:36 PM, Harper wrote:
Reversion to Government Support from Anarchy
I used to be an anarchist because I thought that any chaos that may arise from anarchy would be preferable to state sponsored tyranny. Of course, the problem with anarchy is that humans naturally band together, so you may have eliminated an official form of tyranny, but you're in for just as much a rough ride since multiple gangs and factions will rise up to take power in order to protect self interest. And without any governing body limiting the actions of these groups, they may resort to violence to obtain power and establish their own, usually dictatorial, rule. So, you find yourself back to square one. It is for that reason that setting up an anarchy is self-defeating-- it's no more a solution to the problem of government than suicide is a solution to the problem of suffering.

A lot of well meaning people want anarchy, totally glossing over the fact that it is simply not a solution compatible with the nature of humans (at least in their current form) and thus completely unworkable. So, that leaves the ex-anarchist with a couple options: either come up with a new form of government that somehow avoids the flaws of current and past governments or revert to the least tyrannical current option (I guess that's where you get the bulk of your libertarians from).

The latter option is pretty unappealing if you ask me-- it's no fun to simply settle for what some other dude put together. So let's try to make up new ones ourselves, I already have 2 suggestions:

Suggestion 1: The Literal Nanny State
This form of government focuses solely on regulating child care and reproduction. Why? Because the only reason we need government is to keep ourselves secure. Security is threatened by the actions of other people. The actions of other people is controlled by their behavior. Their behavior is influenced by environment (nurture) and genetics (nature). Bad environment (abusive family, poverty, etc.) and/or bad genetics (for example, low levels of monoamine oxidase A due to genetic malformity, which causes violent behavior) will create a "bad" person who will threaten the security of others. Good environment (loving people, a non-polluted, safe neighborhood, good education, etc.) and good genetics (no genetic predispositions to insanity, addiction, low IQ, etc.) will create a harmonious person. If you could prevent bad environment and bad genetics on a society wide scale, then you will end up with a harmonious population with little need for police, criminal courts, jails, military (if implemented world wide), welfare (community solidarity and charity could do the trick), or big government. In fact, if done correctly, the government would be so small to the point where the only program necessary is the child care/designer baby program.

My proposal for how the "nurture" part will be done is mostly outlined here: http://www.debate.org.... Though as a note, I have read some studies that show that biological parents are the least likely to abuse their children, and if that is so then you would administer the Parental Licensing Exam before couples are expecting a child so as to weed out those who are unfit to be biological parents and let those who are fit have their own children (this could cause some population problems...).

Nature or genetics will be handled by geneticists specializing in genetic engineering and "designer babies". People who are genetically unfit will not necessarily be restricted from reproducing if they are otherwise fit parents, but will be required to have their children engineered to meet a genetic health standard. What this standard is and how the scientists will pull it off is honestly beyond me at this point.

Proposal 2: Individual Anarchy
Think of every big evil that you can think of that was committed in the past-- more often than not, the evils will not have been committed by some lone wolf, but by a gang, government, cartel, political group, corporation, etc. Groups are capable of much greater evil than individuals. Government is an example of a group, so if groups are more potentially evil than individuals, then it makes no sense for government to control individuals. Rather it should be the other way around. Individuals, the inherently more benign of the two, should control governments and other groups. Only people unaffiliated with groups would be able to vote-- "independent" is no longer a voting option, it is a requirement.

One of the failures of anarchy, as stated before, was that there was no control over the actions of political groups and gangs to obtain power for themselves. This cannot happen if the power is with individuals alone.

Some issues relevant to this form of government, though, is that there is 1. the possibility of mob rule and 2. the possibility of "individuals" having deals to favor certain groups/businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, those were the two I've come up with so far, what say you?

I think that Anarchy can work if good people can prevent people with evil intent from successfully acting on their destructive desires.

But isn't that inherently a form of government? Government is nothing more than a special group of people with authority. Good people preventing evil people from doing evil things requires authority and legitimacy to happen, or else they won't be able to actually do anything, no?