National Service

[Ghogiel]

This part is true. Hierarchy from the top down is the no no.

 

That's the only way it has ever worked.

Except when it hasn't. For example there are plenty of 'grass roots' societies and communes that used the reverse form of hierarchy, both modern and ancient.

 

Which gets to the main problem of anarchy. It's great for the purposes of revolution, but totally sucks for the purposes of trying to maintain a stable government.

 

I was under the impression that anarchy was the absence of a government, stable or otherwise, and emphasized absolute freedom of the individual. That may be why it's difficult to create an anarchist government ;)

 

Yup that would be fundamental to anarchism> in both theory and practice.

[Vagrant0]

This part is true. Hierarchy from the top down is the no no.

 

That's the only way it has ever worked.

Except when it hasn't. For example there are plenty of 'grass roots' societies and communes that used the reverse form of hierarchy, both modern and ancient.

What you speak of are small communities... Not countries. The logistic necessities of managing any area larger than a town pretty much requires some top down hierarchy... Even if it is just a body of town leaders to oversee policy and act as informational collection points for a district so that other districts.

 

As for top down hierarchy working... I would point to pretty much every empire that has ever existed. Babylonians, Egyptians, Greek, Chinese, Japanese, Arabian, Turkish, Israeli, Holy Roman, some of the lesser known civilizations throughout Africa and Indo-asia, and most of the European powers which established themselves out of the darkness of the Middle Ages. Many of these groups managed to have reasonably sustained prosperity for thousands of years before corruption, disaster, or invasion eventually lead to their downfall. That is not to say that such a system is perfect, but that the life cycle of those systems seems to be longer than a system based on equality, such as Democracy, Communism, Socialism, Marxism, purely by nature of fewer people involved in the decision making process for that nation, and subsequently a shorter list of people to kick out of power when it all goes wrong.

[WarRatsG]

the life cycle of those systems seems to be longer than a system based on equality, such as Democracy, Communism, Socialism, Marxism, purely by nature of fewer people involved in the decision making process for that nation, and subsequently a shorter list of people to kick out of power when it all goes wrong.

 

Then you have the other extremes: totalitarianism, autocracy, and worst of all monarchy. The more power you give to an individual the harder it is to remove it. I would refer to Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, or Stalin while we're in that area, Emperor Nero of Rome and at least half of the British and French monarchs. I could go on, but I think I've made my point. A democratic government is probably the best way of doing things, at least on a national scale, so long as those in power are actually capable leaders. The problem may not lie with the system, but the leaders themselves. While it may not be absolute democracy, as in everyone having an equal say, it is still better for some people to have more power than others. Absolute democracy is like two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner.

[ginnyfizz]

I am not sure where you are getting the bit about at least half of British monarchs being autocrats/absolute monarchs. The Saxon Kings were never more than primus inter pares and rarely able to assert complete authority, which is why it took so long for the Saxon Kingdoms to unite under one Bretwalda. The Normans and Plantagenets likewise experienced the rebellious tendencies of the English and a number of them were deposed by the same - Wars Of The Roses and all that. Even the Tudors did not always get their own way, and the Stuarts...well we shortened one of them by a head when he tried his absolute monarchy nonsense. Ironically the most authentic dictator we had was not a monarch at all but 'Orrible Ollie Cromwell (why the heck he has a statue near the Houses of Parliament I will never understand), who when overreaching himself (undermining the authority of the Speaker of the House Of Commons) was famously reminded (or threatened) by his army chief, Sir Thomas Fairfax "I recall we cut off a King's head for less than this..." No wonder we had the monarchy back after the miserable old Grinch Who Banned Christmas...

 

Since then, our monarchs have been kept out of executive decisions (we did have to boot out Headless Charlie's second son to make our point, but boot him we did...)

 

I personally prefer Elizabeth II and her successors in title to the shudder making idea of a President Phoney Blair...

[WarRatsG]

Hehe I forgot to change the line of arguement from absolute autocrats to bad autocrats. Many British and French kings were highly sectarian, although to be fair I think everyone was either racist or sexist as well during that period, but people died because of it. The Tsar almost completely ignored his people and made a complete arse of the first World War. Stalin did modernize and revitalize Russia with his five year plans, but he was also responsible for the deaths of 60 million. Nero cut off a guy's testicles and married them.

 

Still, I did exaggerate before. Bad habit ;)

 

Autocracy is great when someone brilliant steps up, and they stay brilliant. When they let the power get to them, or are just arseholes in the first place, things go wrong.

[Vagrant0]

It is incredibly easy to point to almost any past or present leader and claim that they were bad in one way or another. That is because we usually don't know the whole story behind their actions, or see things from their perspective.

 

If I had to put my finger on it, the problem that the world is facing now is that there really aren't any leaders who remain resolute to a given cause. Almost every Western government has been shackled by their ties to business, banks, and special interests. About the only action they take is shuffling their feet awkwardly hoping that they remain in favor next election cycle. In many cases, it's the political parties who are making any calls, and most of them are just aimed at undermining the other party so they look less mediocre. And from that perspective, war is just another thing they're keeping on the back burner in order to keep votes. If there wasn't a war happening, the person who's only solid position is ending the war wouldn't have any position left.

 

Adding conscription to the bag of political tools would just be silly, but it would also probably get the most favor since those who are directly affected by it aren't the ones who are keen on voting.

[ginnyfizz]

Hehe I forgot to change the line of arguement from absolute autocrats to bad autocrats. Many British and French kings were highly sectarian, although to be fair I think everyone was either racist or sexist as well during that period, but people died because of it. The Tsar almost completely ignored his people and made a complete arse of the first World War. Stalin did modernize and revitalize Russia with his five year plans, but he was also responsible for the deaths of 60 million. Nero cut off a guy's testicles and married them.

 

Still, I did exaggerate before. Bad habit ;)

 

Autocracy is great when someone brilliant steps up, and they stay brilliant. When they let the power get to them, or are just arseholes in the first place, things go wrong.

 

Yeah, monarchs were as much children of their times as anyone, but it is often the case that behind every heretic burning sectarian monarch there is a Torquemada figure egging them on. The fact is that very few, and certainly not in Britain, have ever acted as total autocrats and they have been as suscptible to manipulation as anyone. Interestingly, much vaunted as Magna Carta is, and for good reasons, how many of you have actually read it? Being a law graduate and avid history nut I have. And if you want to look for where years of sexism,racism and sectarianism was enshrined in our consciousness, look in there. There are bits about "no man shall be convicted upon the word of a woman or a Jew" for example.

 

But yep, Vagrant0 has said much of what I have been thinking. Not just about the benefit of hindsight, but about the direction our leaders are taking and what really drives them, their lack of ideas and principle.

[JimboUK]

the life cycle of those systems seems to be longer than a system based on equality, such as Democracy, Communism, Socialism, Marxism, purely by nature of fewer people involved in the decision making process for that nation, and subsequently a shorter list of people to kick out of power when it all goes wrong.

 

Then you have the other extremes: totalitarianism, autocracy, and worst of all monarchy. The more power you give to an individual the harder it is to remove it. I would refer to Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, or Stalin while we're in that area, Emperor Nero of Rome and at least half of the British and French monarchs. I could go on, but I think I've made my point. A democratic government is probably the best way of doing things, at least on a national scale, so long as those in power are actually capable leaders. The problem may not lie with the system, but the leaders themselves. While it may not be absolute democracy, as in everyone having an equal say, it is still better for some people to have more power than others. Absolute democracy is like two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner.

 

 

Absolute democracy would be tyrannical, the tyranny of the majority, a quick look through the comments in the Daily Mail should be enough to put any sane person off that idea.

 

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." -Winston Churchill

 

 

their lack of ideas and principle.

 

This is what you get when people who have no experience of the real world are asked to solve real world problems. The biggest problem facing our "democracy" is the rise of the career politician, clueless numpties who put politics before people. Look at our current government, the economy is stagnant, unemployment is at obscene levels and our businesses are buried under a mountain of red tape from Brussels and Whitehall jobsworths. Their answer? attack those who don't take jobs that don't exist and build conservatories, it would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

[ginnyfizz]

Aye, I think "Clueless posh boys who don't know the price of milk" was bang on. And I'm one of those looking for those elusive jobs that they seem to think are the scum of the earth.

[JimboUK]

Mad Nads was spot on with that comment, neither of them have a clue and the other members of Camerons chumocracy are no better. I imagine IDS would love to go around kicking the disabled out of their wheelchairs for fun, May is beyond useless, Hunt is either a crook or unbelievably stupid, Gove is not half as clever as he thinks he is, Clegg is another Cameron, Davey is a climate change lunatic, Hauge is a little boy lost and the less said about that snake Cable the better. It's like the country is being run by a group of schoolchildren on work experience.

 

They make Browns shambolic government look competent.