society need structures in order to keep order otherwise there is chaos. if we were to start again, knowing all that we know, what would be the best way to organise things like land ownership, political systems, food distribution, shelter, families and so on. Would democracy be best or a dictator? Is it essential that one person takes charge, meaning that that person is the first dictator? If the first people claim all the land then that will lead to major problems in centuries to follow? All our problems today are a result of bad decisions taken in the past so we we had another chance what should we do differently?
2006-07-09 05:48:49 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Which social & political system is best depends on which race does the re-colonizing of Earth. Some races need a strongman to suppress chaos, and if they don't have one their society never does anything important, never goes anywhere worthwhile.
Other races are naturally more orderly, more socially gregarious, and a dictator is necessary for them only during times of emergency. At other times, a dictator would be an unnecessary drag on the creativity and initiative of these races.
But a ship in a storm needs a captain, not a committee; and the same is true for nations during emergencies. Of course, the captain must be competent and must have the interest of his crew as his foremost concern. It's certainly possible for the wrong man to become a dictator, for the same reason that it's possible to have an incompetent or a traitorous ship's captain.
Communism probably isn't the best system for any race. It's a system in which the jealous losers have banded together to bring down people who are better than they are, overthrowing them by the sheer weight of their massed numbers. Communist and socialist systems are nearly always parasites on someone who would be better off if the leftist rulers were to disappear from the world.
Most people are aware of the ways communism suffers from "tragedy in the commons," where everybody wants to take out a bit more than he puts in, until finally the state can't borrow any more money and the economy collapses, as happened with the Soviet Union. Ayn Rand did a good job pointing out the defects of socialism.
But capitalism has this problem too; it just occurs at the opposite side of the evolution. Capitalism is a cancer. It grows like mad, kills a world, and dies, taking the world down to the grave with it. Capitalism's tragedy in the commons comes to a crisis when the world runs out of some necessary resource, or when the world becomes unfit for further habitation.
No capitalist wants to stop using energy and polluting because, if he does, the other capitalists will get an advantage over him in business. So all the capitalists waste fuel and dump waste until the whole system either runs out of gas or the whole Earth dies.
(Ayn Rand did a poor job in assessing capitalism, despite how she forced it to work in her story ATLAS SHRUGGED. Don't take your lessons uncritically from fiction, especially if the writer thinks herself a philosopher.)
Maybe the best system for the White race is an aristocracy, with the possibility that a commoner could become a noble through conspicuous merit, and with the possibility that a noble could lose his title because of treason to his race or some other especially offensive villainy.
A dictator is either worth his while or not.
The value of freedom depends on what you do with it.
A freedom that leads a people to their destruction is a freedom better lost. Survival comes first. Freedom has no importance to the dead.
Similar things can be said about moral systems. Their purpose is to help their practitioners to survive, and then to make themselves secure from attack and expropriation, and then to live well on the condition that the benefits can be maintained in perpetuity.
The role of wisdom in choosing a moral system has to do with discriminating moral systems that can't be maintained in perpetuity from those that can be. The flaw of many moral systems is that all they do is give their practitioners "warm and fuzzy" feelings, while leading them toward extinction in the long run.
2006-07-09 06:13:35 · answer #1 · answered by David S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First off, the world is not so bad.
Even in the worst parts of it, people live as long and with the same level of uncertainty as did our cave-dwelling ancestors.
the rest of us live long lives relatively disease, violence and hunger-free.
Ancient dictatorships existed because they lacked the technology to create consensus with more than a few people.
Modern technology allows communication between millions with ease, so democratic forms of governance are most desirable.
If not, people will feel marginalized, which would lead to social disorder (crime, wars, terrorism)
The downside with democracy is that even the incompetent get a say, but that is marginally better than the widespread anarchy of the disenfranchised.
Capitalism has to stay as long as we have technology, because money is still the most efficient means of communicating value and trade. It has its drawbacks, but pie in the sky ideas of total equality do not work, because not everyone wants or will settle for the same living standards. Plus we need to keep a system that encourages innovation. No reward means no risk.
I think the best system would be one where citizens had to earn rights in a graduated fashion rather than have them all simply provided for free.
2006-07-09 13:05:06 · answer #2 · answered by aka DarthDad 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the people who colonized the earth again were of the caliber of say John Locke, Aristotle, Thomas Jefferson and Ayn Rand then they would develope a system and it would be a paradise, if on the other hand they were people such as William Jefferson, Ted Kennedy and Cindy Sheehan then I personally would dread thinking about it.
2006-07-09 13:15:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Communism is good on paper, but it doesn't work well for the people that have to live under it. Democrocy is good on paper, but you could have 35, 34, 31 % split, and 65% of the people don't agree. The fact is that when one group of people rules over another, or gets to make decisions for another, someone will always be unhappy. We just have to make do with what comes along, and hope you don't get shot for having thoughts that others don't agree with.
2006-07-09 12:53:34 · answer #4 · answered by Blunt Honesty 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anarchism. A society made of such wise people that states and borders wouldn't be needed as we know them.
2006-07-09 12:51:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no best system. We as humans are flawed so any system humans create will be flawed.
2006-07-09 12:55:08 · answer #6 · answered by Skippy 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
social democratic like in scandinavia
2006-07-09 12:52:45 · answer #7 · answered by Tones 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
socialism or communism
2006-07-09 12:51:15 · answer #8 · answered by slutface 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋