h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The problem with this idea, and with (idealistic) communism is that it relies totally on people being able to distinguish and categorise their "needs" and their "wants". Even when people justify them they are hard to differentiate.

* My hair is long so I "need" a haircut.

* I broke my TV so I "need" a new one.

* I don't like driving slowly so I "need" a faster car.

* I do not like working for a living so I "need" to retire at 40 and live off large government (or system) handouts.

* I can't afford the latest electronic gizmos so I "need" a lot of cash.

In the end, it comes down to the fact that the people who have the opportunity to abuse the system (almost) always do so for personal gain. The ideal system is one which there is small group of people in charge. Instead, there is a system in charge which is only run by the people voted in to power, not designed by them (alone).

Hmm.

I think that abusers are normally fairly clear by inspection: we can easily see the 'fat cats' in capitalist society - it would be just as easy to see them in a democratic anarchy. Actually, I find it hard to believe you could exceed the abuse inherent in capitalism, where one person can own several palaces(!) and get away with it. You don't have to have a perfectly fair system to improve on the current system.

And, crucially, in a democratic anarchy somebody who took more than they needed wouldn't have all the government-based forces available to protect their assets. Someone who owned multiple palaces would quickly find that the palaces they weren't living in were being occupied by squatters. Someone who had a fast car they didn't drive very often would find it being driven quickly down the motorway by someone else.

Which would solve the problem, no?

"Is it rather arrogant of those in power to assume that the human race, after so many centuries of evolution, are only kept from a return to barbarianism by their presence? To assume that their own presence in a ruling position is the only thing keeping an otherwise population of scum and criminals from living in a destructive fashion in which crime and depravity would ensue is truly worrying. ...

The truth of the matter is that the majority of crime around the world is caused by poverty."

I agree that there is a flaw in the proposed system. The fact is, that while it may be argued that poverty breeds crime, what breeds poverty is not government; poverty is bred by selfishness, lack of love, and pride.

'Government' is not some faceless entity, but is made up up people much like those who this researcher says are exploited by government; difference in the two groups of people has much more to do with abilities and opportunites (a.k.a. RESPONSIBILITIES to steward) that some have while others don't.

The reason Communism doesn't work isn't because of current world systems; it's because of human nature, essentailly scared, insecure, therefore selfish, greedy, and petty. It only makes sense that a beureaucratic communism would decay into totalitarianism.

And the reason democracy by anarchy wouldn't prevail has nothing to do most fundamentally with infrastructural limitations or the hold of government. It's because of a generalization of what Thomas Hobbes observed: government arose (especially assuming evolutionary humanism) as a social contract, each member of a society seeking individual gain trhough teamwork. And when the teams get large enough a sovereign (ruler) is by some means appointed whereby all members voluntarily relinquish some freedoms found in a State of Nature for the guarantee of other protections [of other rights]. No government: State of Nature. State of Nature: all against all, and no possibility for rhe cration of an infrastructure of democratic anarchy.

If we were 'evolutionarily advanced' enough to be able to implement and sustain such a Utopic system, wouldn't we already be living in Star Trek World? Perhaps evolutionary advancement isn't really going on.

> "The reason Communism doesn't work..."

There's a tired old chestnut. Seems that it's working reasonably well in China, for example. Point is, the western world spent over half a century trying to break Communism, by any means necessary. Including, in some countries, turning to Fascism. And after all the military, political, economic attempts to destroy Communism, it's still around.

I'm not saying that Communism is the perfect system - far from it. But it's a tried and tested alternative to Capitalism, and it works. It'd be working a lot more widely if the USA hadn't spent billions trying to destabilise any communist government that looked a bit weak...

> "Thomas Hobbes observed: government arose as a social contract"

Hobbes was never very good at backing up his theories by actually doing the history. Most state-size government wasn't constructed bottom-up: it was imposed from the top down by conquest - or at least, that's how it worked in Europe.

> "If we were 'evolutionarily advanced' enough to be able to implement and sustain such a Utopic system, wouldn't we already be living in Star Trek World?"

In past times, Stavro would be sitting at the back of the cave, saying "If fire's such a great idea, how come everyone else isn't using it?". Just because it hasn't been done yet, doesn't mean it can't be done.

God dang is this gal good (as I would say if I was from Texas which fortunately I am not). Everything I was just about to put in reply to the first 2 postings has been aptly place by yourself, you are truly a pinnacle of debating skill. I would therefore like to extend an invitation to join the exhalted ranks of the Kalashnikov Party to you Lucinda Et al... have a look for the Kalashnikov Party Needs you conversation on The Kalashnikov Party Needs You page. Alternatively you can leave your e-mail address at [email protected] and we will send you an invitation from there...

There is a very small island in the Pacific, I believe no more than a hundred acres. If memory serves, it has been inhabitated for over a thousand years. It's average population is about 50 people. This comes out to roughly 1,000 people/square mile. Technologically these people lived in the stone age this whole time, fairly isolated for most of their existance.

What we think of as "human nature" isn't necessarily so. People say that humans are naturally selfish, you know, that whole survival of the fittest thing. Well, compare man to say... a squirrel. Ever try to catch a squirrel with your bare hands? Not very easy. I think this type of thinking applies to most small furry animals, so that rules most of them out for food.

Now lets look at plants. Many are edible, but there are many others that are not. Some are even posionous. If a gatherer happens to find a dangerous plant whose effects don't set in for say... 3 hours, he picks large numbers of them, takes them 'home' and shares them with his small family of say... 4 total members. 3 hours later they are all dead or dying, and nobody knows why, the information is lost and others can just as easily fall prey to this plants toxins.

My theory is basically that man had to group together to survive, much like apes, monkey's and chimps with which may share some common ancestory. Humans are genetically bred to be concerned with their neighbors welfare.

Sure it's not air tight, and there's some evidence in modern day society against it, but to me it sounds better than a lot of arguements for selfishness that I hear from people who just repeat what they hear.