What form of government do you prefer?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
In the world as it exists today, which apparently does not have "intelligent, peaceful, and well-adjusted individuals" why would you prefer concentrating power and giving it to some subset of these dumb, violent, anti-social people?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because not everyone is dumb, violent and anti-social. A subset of the population is indeed "intelligent, peaceful and well adjusted". No society can work without that.

But there are degrees to which populations exhibit these traits. For example, in Japan you can leave your bike or car unlocked in a busy city, and no one will take it. Try that in California. Just as there are parts of the world where people band together after a natural disaster, and help one another, and then there is New Orleans. All have government, so that can't be the problem...

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the world as it exists today, which apparently does not have "intelligent, peaceful, and well-adjusted individuals" why would you prefer concentrating power and giving it to some subset of these dumb, violent, anti-social people?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because not everyone is dumb, violent and anti-social. A subset of the population is indeed "intelligent, peaceful and well adjusted". No society can work without that.

[/ QUOTE ]

And these are the very last people who gain political power. Oh, the intelligent get it, just not the peaceful and well adjusted. (Or if they do, they don't STAY peaceful and well adjusted)

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
And these are the very last people who gain political power.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not suggesting that government is full of these people. But your assertion is false too. For example, Clinton (a Rhodes scholar) strikes me as pretty high on these three items.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the world as it exists today, which apparently does not have "intelligent, peaceful, and well-adjusted individuals" why would you prefer concentrating power and giving it to some subset of these dumb, violent, anti-social people?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because not everyone is dumb, violent and anti-social. A subset of the population is indeed "intelligent, peaceful and well adjusted". No society can work without that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, then. So really your only objection is external threats?

[ QUOTE ]
Just as there are parts of the world where people band together after a natural disaster, and help one another, and then there is New Orleans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where people banded together and helped each other. While the government did nothing, or made the problem worse by *preventing* people from helping each other. What was the point you were making here?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
In a society with intelligent, peaceful and well adjusted individuals, and with a lack of external threats, libertarian socialism (aka anarcho socialism) is a superior and dignified model. By far my favorite.

In the word as it exists today and will for the next several hundred years, democracy is my favorite form of government.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is terribly naive. The belief in the Jesus politicians.

Circumstances is what makes people good or evil.

If you have a state, then it will attract people who seek power. When people get power, they will use it for their own short-term benefit at the expense of other people.

This is a law insofar human behaviour is concerned.

[MegaloMialo]

"Circumstances is what makes people good or evil."

do you want to explain that?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
"Circumstances is what makes people good or evil."

do you want to explain that?

[/ QUOTE ]


This will give you part of the answer:



Understanding How Good People Turn Evil: Renowned Psychologist Philip Zimbardo On his Landmark Stanford Prison Experiment, Abu Ghraib and More
http://www.democracynow.org/article..../03/30/1335257

[LotteryOrPoker]

Oops, I think I stumbled into the crackpot forum. That is all, please carry on.

*Edit/Jman220: You can have a day off to think about why you shouldn't make crappy posts in the crackpot forum.