I rather doubt that pithy line of reasoning is true - certainly there is less communism and more democracy now than when I was little.
I personally would not be shocked if technology enables a sort of anarcho-syndicalism in the future, but I bet there would be some bill of rights and division of powers and taxes to pay for it. but not a big collapse. a big collapse leading to gun/virus/EMP wars between roving bands of displaced IT workers from Charlotte attacking the rural land-owners with no rules or police or infrastructure maintenance I would not expect to be good, in terms of human pleasure or life span. Is this the system you think would be better than our tax based system? On Dec 12, 2012 8:23 AM, "R A Fonda" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 12/12/2012 10:48 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > Now is the time for the Churchill quote about democracy being the worst > form of government except for all the alternatives. > > > Like hard cases making bad law, pithy comments can make for poor > reasoning. IS democracy *really* better than all the alternatives? I > submit that it is not, if for no other reason than the previously posted > analysis that it inevitably segues into communism. We also have the > empirical data, revealing that it is a disaster. A case can be made that > the *original *US constitution was the best of a bad lot as governments > go. I favor anarchy. Yes, I know that it wont work in a crowded industrial > world because people will self-organize or another nation will usurp the > territory in a state of anarchy, but that overcrowded industrialized world > will soon collapse, and anarchy will be the natural state of existence > again, as it was for all of human existence prior to agriculture. > > So *no-thing* needs to be done, as there is no practical 'solution' (one > that could be enacted by popular will, from 'here') to optimize the current > state of human existence except to endure it, for the time being. > > RAF > > >
