Jump to content

Recommended Posts

all depends on the situation and what you want to achieve I suppose. But I think the best would be a dictatorship with a level headed leader, of course those are very few and far between if history has any merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because countries like China have 1.300.000.000 citizens. Good luck communicating with them as a state. Anarchism is as of yet impossible, because you should hold referendi every time the state decides something. Due to the impossible communication people either have to not be at work half of the time to vote, or be able to vote through devices as smartphones, which are unsafe and can be manipulated. Maybe in the future, but as of today anarchism can't work properly. Also, dat necro

>implying that in a world of total anarchy borders exist

Well, everything is better in a smaller area; this is why regional governments are very important. In an anarchist state, everyone is involved in its running. Therefore, how big can it get? Not very big, think population of 10,000.

 

The point is, big countries don't need to exist, really.

 

Also, I thought it was worthy of a bump... it's an interesting topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

As being a former Presidente myself (obviously not talking about my experiences in Tropico in any way), I've learned that the best way to rule is a democratic, capitalistic society. Always put the people in front of yourself and national security in front of the people. If none of this is done, you'll find yourself with rebels and defecting soldiers burning down your local farms and whatnot. Take my advice and everything will be all honky dory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As being a former Presidente myself (obviously not talking about my experiences in Tropico in any way), I've learned that the best way to rule is a democratic, capitalistic society. Always put the people in front of yourself and national security in front of the people. If none of this is done, you'll find yourself with rebels and defecting soldiers burning down your local farms and whatnot. Take my advice and everything will be all honky dory

I think capitalism is an ideology which is slowly dieing out. Throughout history, sure, capitalism has created economic growth, but on the scale of economic growth, there are always someone who ends up losing. The socio-economic differences capitalism makes is just unbeliavable.

 

To answer OP's question:

 

I have two political ideologies which I am really fond of. Basically, I want either anarchy or communism. Both are very different ideologies, but I'd just want a state that controls everything, or no state at all. Anarchy is the ideology that I cling most to, but communism seems more realistic to happen where I live. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Name me one democratic country in the world that has not this excact system. This reminds me of Madara's pessimistic plan from the manga Naruto, everyone just lives in a perfect dream world but in reality it's just like in "Matrix"

 

This. Except that instead of experts who know what is better for the country and citizens we have Bankers and huge capitals owner doing what is better for their own interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the leader ain't some selfish asshole, and can think about the whole country, then communism.

 

It is a genius way of ruling a country, but it has never worked due to leaders that didn't care about the people in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>implying that in a world of total anarchy borders exist

Well, everything is better in a smaller area; this is why regional governments are very important. In an anarchist state, everyone is involved in its running. Therefore, how big can it get? Not very big, think population of 10,000.

 

The point is, big countries don't need to exist, really.

 

Also, I thought it was worthy of a bump... it's an interesting topic.

This form of government has existed. It was pre bronze age when people were formed into hunter gatherer societies and early farming cultures. The key is that some of these small regional groups will have more resources and thus have a higher population. Because of this that group will have more innovations, more troops and a pressure to find more resources to satisfy a growing nation state.

 

In addition to that some nation states that are simular in ethnicity will band togather to defend against any other ethnicity seeking to conquer them individually. From that position the united nation states will have lost the self rule and will gain the ability to conquer others themselves. This is one of the factors of the rise of the Roman empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good king is the best way.

The problem is, there's never any good kings.

 

The irony is, I'm a libertarian.

Tsar Peter the Great?

Suleiman the Magnificent?

Constantine the Great?

Frederick II?

Cyrus the Great?

Victoria I? (technically not a king, but she'll do just fine)

Joffrey Lannister/Baratheon?

Ashoka the Great?

Akbar the Great?

Henry IV (of France)?

Harun-Al Rashid?

Khusrau?

Hammurabi?

 

Yes they might have done some bad things but nobody is perfect. But I must agree good kings/dicators are hard to come by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This form of government has existed. It was pre bronze age when people were formed into hunter gatherer societies and early farming cultures. The key is that some of these small regional groups will have more resources and thus have a higher population. Because of this that group will have more innovations, more troops and a pressure to find more resources to satisfy a growing nation state.

 

In addition to that some nation states that are simular in ethnicity will band togather to defend against any other ethnicity seeking to conquer them individually. From that position the united nation states will have lost the self rule and will gain the ability to conquer others themselves. This is one of the factors of the rise of the Roman empire.

I know it has existed, in Ukraine before the Soviets took them over a large part of the south of Ukraine was ruled by the people and only the people as a co-operative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...