The Irony: Discussing government on ILP

On this website we have a wide variety of political ideologies, in fact quite a large portion seems to lead toward the more liberal or anarchist ideologies and you also have your more religous fundementalist types and some that lead toward fascism and totalitaranism.

My politcal ideology seems to be fairly unique, perhaps that’s because i’ve assembled mine from the ground up rather than choosing and established one and modifying it to better fit my persoal views.

Ironically though, with all the talk of Anarchism and Liberal Democracy, Socialism, Collectivism, Individualism etc. We don’t seem to discuss things closer too home so to speak.

As when i am looking at what I belief are suitable political ideologies I don’t simply start with what sound good to me alone, but what have by history proven to have actually worked and functioned.
What allowed them too work and function, and what stopped them from being able to function.

I’ve talked about this a little before in http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176453&p=2246967&hilit=the+government+of+ilp#p2246967.

Now I understand it’s not a perfect parallel as there are large differances between running a forum and running a nation (i believe).

Now if I were to catagorize the moderators into a government i would consider them to be a Oligarchy/Aristocracy (varying on the widely differant definitions of those two terms). That preserve the right of banishment and censorship in order to keep things orderly. Now to be clear I am not criticizing this system simply pointing out how i see it.

Now for many words like “censorship” and “Oligarchy” sound like dirty words but as i said i try to form my ideology from the ground up and as this website has not (as far as i can tell) descended into chaos, I’d say i believe we could all learn something from this.

Your ideology is in fact a nice sinthesis of what has worked and what you want.

The reason Anarchism is attractive to some who would maybe otherwise think like you, I think, is that it is not an idology but an anti-ideology. An atheist didn’t pick a religion, he picked no-religion. In the same way, Anarchism is more of a rejection than an embracing, or even a creating.

You look at the historical continuum and ask: “what is the best way to continue?”

I look at it and say: “the continuum must be ended.”

Anarchism started as a radical socialism, but it’s main difference from socialism has become its core and only constant: No - more - state.

The beauty of it is that it is like Neo’s red pill: it’s not really “the point,” just a transitional device.

Regarding ILP, well, as far as governing goes, they aren’t all that bad.

You know I can see the appeal of anarchism I really can, but one of my major problems with anarchism is that it is a hypocritically ideology (as far as i can see it).

Anarchism wishes too eliminate government.

In it’s essense it seems to wish to eliminate control/coercion and promote absolute freedom/independance. But detroying peoples freedom to be governed subverts this quite interestingly.

You impose your will but not allowing people to Rule or serve or to be “controlled”. In the same way that liberal societies limit what there leaders are allowed to do, they claim they have more freedom (and perhaps for the masses they do) but they take freedoms away from their rulers.

Food for thought.

To Stoic:

For whom does the centralized bureaucracy of government work for?

Who benefits from the government?

I know that I do not benefit from the government where it definitely does not work for my interests at stake.

Who really does any government work for?

How so?

With any form of organization it usually helps those who help in return.

Stoic, that argument was like saying that abolishing slavery enslaves the ex-slaves into not being able to be enslaved.

Not really, that only works if (like an anarchist) you like to overuse the words slavery, tyranny and fascism.

Ok, let me rephrase: you are saying that to give too much freedom is to lose the freedom to not be free.

Nations are built on a sense of community and exchange of services, Government Organizes this (governments are made up of people from that nation). Now throughout the course of human histroy it has been shown that some times the only way you can deal with an issue is through force (and no it’s not usually deadly force either).

Now to attack government is to attack peoples “right” to organize and exercise their collective will,is every one always satisfied, no.

Is everything in government organization and law always fair , no.

Is it perfect, no.

It’s constantly changing based on the will of the people (whether they be the minority or the majority).

Now people like Joker like to claim government as man made BS etc. etc. and unnatural. But I say it’s absolutely natural, history has shown that people cannot organize and function in large numbers without government because of the fact that people have conflicting views and beliefs, some people aren’t reasonable, some descision have no middle ground and a descision must be chosen for one side or the other Et cetera.

How can this not be done and be of benefit?

That’s the difference between you and an anarchist: you want “rights” while the anarchist wants “freedoms.”

Excellent point. O:)

No, he was right. You should have conceded this point and run with this.

Omg - this may be your best articulated thread to date.

Few people like to speak on my "articulate threads then.

You want to make a thread popular you have to appeal to a persons sense of curiosity.

You can’t discuss things or makes observations and statements, you have to ask questions. Because of course a Question begs an answer.

Your questions are usually very loaded.

Such As?

And I am paraphrasing here.

You do know thats in Mundane Babble right?

The Moderators didn’t put it there I did, because I understood it wasn’t really a sincere question.

Part of the reason I made the thread is that in the anarchist discussions Joker (and to a lesser extent you) seemed to overuse that word.

so you admit it.

Explain to me how I benefit from government. Amuse me.

Government only benefits its supporters of which benefits the most.

Everybody else it enslaves.

Services like anything else revolves around affording.