- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,715
- Reaction score
- 751
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
If forced to choose one way or the other in establishing the primary foundation of a government, which one would you pick?
If forced to choose one way or the other in establishing the primary foundation of a government, which one would you pick?
To make it more user-friendly, perhaps I should modify the poll to ask, which one would you prioritize over the other?
If forced to choose one way or the other in establishing the primary foundation of a government, which one would you pick?
If forced to choose one way or the other
Come on guys- it was a very simple question.
Are we talking absolutes? We have to choose either anarcho capitalism or communism? If I had to choose it would be communism because for all of its problems and death it would be responsible for, it wouldn't immediately deteriorate into feudalism or warlordism.
Yeah, much better to have all that feudalism and warlordism all drawn out over the long term rather than immediately.
Are we talking absolutes? We have to choose either anarcho capitalism or communism? If I had to choose it would be communism because for all of its problems and death it would be responsible for, it wouldn't immediately deteriorate into feudalism or warlordism.
I think it would do less harm and would be easier to recover from and have a government worth having. Russia has some issues but its less of a problem compared to somolia or other places with no government. They are also having a better time making a transition, even if it is problematic.
In general, it is best to follow the side of individualism. While realistically there is some need for understanding collective arguments and seeing how collectivism can be implemented on a limited scale, individualism should be touted as more important. For it is the individual whom possesses rights, not the collective.
There's a valid answer. Of course most people want a mix, but that is completely missing the point of the question. For all those who are still whining about wanting a mix we get that but the point is if extremes are the only option which extreme do you choose?
There's a valid answer. Of course most people want a mix, but that is completely missing the point of the question. For all those who are still whining about wanting a mix we get that but the point is if extremes are the only option which extreme do you choose?
That's because of the cultural makeup of the population which is Russia. In a country where the individuals are capable of self-governing without declining into destructiveness (due to education, culture, values etc), personal freedom facilitates success and personal/societal growth. It all depends on the population one has to work with.
If forced to choose one way or the other in establishing the primary foundation of a government, which one would you pick?
In general, I agree that individualism should be the primary thing as I think people are sovereign. But you do need some sort of mix or else you have a horrible situation at either end. Maybe I don't understand the point of the thread?
Thats the same argument people make about communism (the marx kind, not the russian kind). All we need is better people.
Yes, but individualism allows for success and growth, whereas a Marxist mindset seems to encourage status quo and blind obedience. Success and growth is the very basis for the evolution of every living thing that we know of.