(Just for the record, this is reposted from another forum because I'm lazy and didnt feel like retyping the whole thing.)
I tend to call myself an anarchist, but only because there isnt really a clearcut group for my political views. Anarchy itself is a very loosely defined term, and most people have some pretty large misconceptions about it. So I'd like to open a small challenge: if there are any other anarchists or semi-anarchists on the forum, describe how your ideal society would operate. Then everyone else will come through and explain to us why we're idiots, and it'll be fun. I'll start.
The basis of my position is that personal freedom should be maximized. It's no one else's business what people do as long as it doesnt hurt any innocents. The tricky part is economics. The traditional "left" and "right" positions both have some good points, but neither will work alone. In a completely "left" society, there would be no incentive to work because everyone would be looked after by the government. In a completely "right" society, there would no limit on crime and corruption, and everyone except a select few would live in extreme poverty. So the question is how to effectively mix these to positions to maximize personal freedom. I think the one thing everyone can agree on is that it can be a lot better than it is today.
Some amount of government is necessary, because without organization large scale projects are impossible. Now some people might say I'm not a "true" anarchist for this, but we need something to orchestrate large scale projects, and it seems to me we shouldnt force an unnatural solution just to avoid any mention of the word government. Instead of the current clunky social aid system, the government itself should offer jobs that do things inappropriate for the traditional free market, such as infrastructure construction and upkeep. These jobs should pay a wage good enough to support a family on, and should have reasonable hours. To pay for this, the government should have to taxes: a very small flat sales tax, and a income tax that only effects the upper economic level and rises rapidly. These two measures would get rid of the ridiculous economic inequality seen today, and would fix the many problems that come from inadequate infrastructure. The government would also provide universal health care, as I think America today demonstrates the problems with letting the free market handle medicine. Aside from this, the governments role would be very limited. The current law-making process would be entirely gone. Rather than trying to enforce the same laws on everybody, the government would encourage small, somewhat enclosed societies composed of people with similar views to form. These societies could then form their own laws and govern themselves. The government would only step when some kind of large violation occurred, such as one society attacking another, although even conflict would be allowed as long as everyone participating agreed to it and no children were involved. The legal age would be lowered, and children would be encouraged to be more independent of their parents and form their own beliefs.
Alright, I'd say that just about covers it, although it's (naturally) a bit lacking in detail. Thoughts on anything?
I tend to call myself an anarchist, but only because there isnt really a clearcut group for my political views. Anarchy itself is a very loosely defined term, and most people have some pretty large misconceptions about it. So I'd like to open a small challenge: if there are any other anarchists or semi-anarchists on the forum, describe how your ideal society would operate. Then everyone else will come through and explain to us why we're idiots, and it'll be fun. I'll start.
The basis of my position is that personal freedom should be maximized. It's no one else's business what people do as long as it doesnt hurt any innocents. The tricky part is economics. The traditional "left" and "right" positions both have some good points, but neither will work alone. In a completely "left" society, there would be no incentive to work because everyone would be looked after by the government. In a completely "right" society, there would no limit on crime and corruption, and everyone except a select few would live in extreme poverty. So the question is how to effectively mix these to positions to maximize personal freedom. I think the one thing everyone can agree on is that it can be a lot better than it is today.
Some amount of government is necessary, because without organization large scale projects are impossible. Now some people might say I'm not a "true" anarchist for this, but we need something to orchestrate large scale projects, and it seems to me we shouldnt force an unnatural solution just to avoid any mention of the word government. Instead of the current clunky social aid system, the government itself should offer jobs that do things inappropriate for the traditional free market, such as infrastructure construction and upkeep. These jobs should pay a wage good enough to support a family on, and should have reasonable hours. To pay for this, the government should have to taxes: a very small flat sales tax, and a income tax that only effects the upper economic level and rises rapidly. These two measures would get rid of the ridiculous economic inequality seen today, and would fix the many problems that come from inadequate infrastructure. The government would also provide universal health care, as I think America today demonstrates the problems with letting the free market handle medicine. Aside from this, the governments role would be very limited. The current law-making process would be entirely gone. Rather than trying to enforce the same laws on everybody, the government would encourage small, somewhat enclosed societies composed of people with similar views to form. These societies could then form their own laws and govern themselves. The government would only step when some kind of large violation occurred, such as one society attacking another, although even conflict would be allowed as long as everyone participating agreed to it and no children were involved. The legal age would be lowered, and children would be encouraged to be more independent of their parents and form their own beliefs.
Alright, I'd say that just about covers it, although it's (naturally) a bit lacking in detail. Thoughts on anything?
"The only things that are infinite are the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe."
Albert Einstein
"In a society that has abolished all adventures, the only adventure left is to abolish society."
The Black Iron Prison
Albert Einstein
"In a society that has abolished all adventures, the only adventure left is to abolish society."
The Black Iron Prison
