I'm not very enthusiastic about politics.
In my humble opinion it seems to me that to some extent, whatever government a group of people are under, everyone is to some extent relying on the good intentions of powerful people.
Whether those people are the government in a completely communist government controlled society, or if it's rich well armed people in a free market society with anarchy.
Talking about those two extreme sides, I've noticed a similarity between the two in that they both seem to claim that the true form of their government has never been tried and tested and if we could get to the point of trying the true form of government, that would be for the best.
Communists will say that communism is only truly in place when the government isn't corrupt and resources are pooled properly by the government.
Free market anarchists will say there's never been a country without a government that had a good form of capitalism in place with non aggression principles.
This seems like an excuse to me really. Similar to how religions claim if only everyone would believe as they do everything would be great. I think a part of how good a system works is how corruptible is it and will people follow the rules and what will happen if they decide not to.
Otherwise I could just start a Bill and Ted form of government, when it goes wrong I'll just claim it's because not everyone was being excellent to one another.
Whichever of the two systems that's in power, how "good" the system works might depend on things like the morality of the people in control, how were they raised? Are they psychopaths? Criminals? How good is the technology and resources under their control?
If there's an island with low technology, poor resources, criminal psychopaths for leaders, it won't matter if those leaders call themselves the government or free market entrepreneurs.
In my humble opinion it seems to me that to some extent, whatever government a group of people are under, everyone is to some extent relying on the good intentions of powerful people.
Whether those people are the government in a completely communist government controlled society, or if it's rich well armed people in a free market society with anarchy.
Talking about those two extreme sides, I've noticed a similarity between the two in that they both seem to claim that the true form of their government has never been tried and tested and if we could get to the point of trying the true form of government, that would be for the best.
Communists will say that communism is only truly in place when the government isn't corrupt and resources are pooled properly by the government.
Free market anarchists will say there's never been a country without a government that had a good form of capitalism in place with non aggression principles.
This seems like an excuse to me really. Similar to how religions claim if only everyone would believe as they do everything would be great. I think a part of how good a system works is how corruptible is it and will people follow the rules and what will happen if they decide not to.
Otherwise I could just start a Bill and Ted form of government, when it goes wrong I'll just claim it's because not everyone was being excellent to one another.
Whichever of the two systems that's in power, how "good" the system works might depend on things like the morality of the people in control, how were they raised? Are they psychopaths? Criminals? How good is the technology and resources under their control?
If there's an island with low technology, poor resources, criminal psychopaths for leaders, it won't matter if those leaders call themselves the government or free market entrepreneurs.
Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.
Impersonation is treason.
