Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Regional Summary




Founded - 30 April 2005
Population - 165 Nations
World Ranking - 61
Regional Power - High

Government of the Global Right Alliance


Speaker of the People's Assembly and World Assembly Delegate
Pidgeon Island

Members of the Committee
TBA

World Assembly Delegate
Angusp (aka Bodegraven)

High General of the GRADF
Joe Bobs
Welcome to the Global Right Alliance's forums!

Firstly, you can only see a very limited amount of the forums at the moment. You will be able to see the full forums and properly participate in our region and its community when you register.

Join our Community


Now, on to the region itself. Don't let the name, specifically the "Right", fool you. We've got members from across the political spectrum, and our political parties have always reflected this. The Global Right Alliance (GRA), as primarily a gameplay region, has been everything from an anarchy to a monarchy to a homegrown rotatorship. The region has had such governments because of its culture, which adores political intrigue and thrives on confrontation. With the increase of the region's population, many veterans have returned. It is the beginning of a new Global Right Alliance and a new government system.

I know the forums can be quite intimidating; there's people who have been here for nearly a decade and have over 10,000 posts. However, we welcome new members and encourage them to get involved. If you want help finding your way around, we have resources to help you to get on your way.

Getting Started


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
Anarchy?
Topic Started: Apr 2 2007, 10:44 PM (344 Views)
Jivdom
Member Avatar
Resident Insomniac
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Is Anarchy the aim of society or is it the enermy?

Is Anarchy the perfect system of government or is it just the failure of government?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Arov
Member Avatar
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I got the above from a book I bought in an art museum. I'll post the Amazon link shortly. You just have to read it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arov
Member Avatar
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
http://www.amazon.com/Religions-Ancient-Wo...75983778&sr=8-1
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jivdom
Member Avatar
Resident Insomniac
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Arov
Apr 5 2007, 10:05 PM
Jivdom
Apr 5 2007, 05:40 PM
bigger picture VD... 4,000 years ago the idea of choosing your own religion was just naive. The idea of a democracy was naive according to Aristotle (one of the greatest philosophical thinkers in history) only a few thousand years ago. As society moves on it improves slowly but surely so over thousands of years real change occurs. over the past few thousand years people (the unwashed masses) have become much more impowered and there is no reason not to assume that this trend will not continue.

4,000 years ago, everyone borrowed gods from everyone else; people were worshipping and making up new gods and godesses all the time. You just had to believe what the king told you; other than that, religion was freer than it is today in many places. And even in the "free countries", you wouldn't expect religions to mix the way they did in ancient times at all (imagine people making offerings to Shiva while still considering themselves Christians; unheard of).

Again you're being too subjective. Yes in one respect religion as a whole was more flexible however the freedom to choose religion was not there. Attempt to use said freedom generally did not end well...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arov
Member Avatar
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Read the book I posted a link to.

Back in ancient times, from civilization to civilization, the same pantheons of gods and godesses were present in the entire Mediterranean world up until Monotheism was established for good among the Judaeans in the first century CE.

Ancient trade routes were not just carrying goods, but gods and godesses as well. Even the Canaanites adopted the Israelite god as one of their deities. You
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jivdom
Member Avatar
Resident Insomniac
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
You seem to be hung up on a religious issue and not the governance issue. As I said
Quote:
 
Again you're being too subjective. Yes in one respect religion as a whole was more flexible however the freedom to choose religion was not there. Attempt to use said freedom generally did not end well...

but for your benifit i will rephrase;
Whilst the ability to choose elements of religion was there AND though religions as a whole were more flexible (probably due to lack of the fifth power) the ability of the individual to choose his or her own religious alignment was not present as it is to day. Attempts to do so were frequently met with negative concequences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arov
Member Avatar
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It has VERY much to do with governance.

What we call "religious alignment" today was very different back then. The borders between religious faiths were simply geographical with the exception of the Israelites. In today's religions, the god or gods you worship are defined, and if you worship any other gods on the side, you are not considered part of the said religion.

Even nowadays, even worshipping the same god in a different name can get you discriminated against in so-called "free countries". And you would still be ostracized if you for instance made offerings to Vishnu but still went to Church on Sundays.

But thousands of years ago, the difference between gods across the Mediterranean world was only in name. Osiris was known as Hades in Greece; Artemis was known as Sekhmet in Egypt. But if you believed in something that could undermine the ruling order, that was met with intolerance. Religious persecution has always taken place for political and social reasons, and for no other reason.

Religious leaders, it follows, have more sway over what you worship now than they did back then. And they too contribute to the social hierarchy we call "government", if even in a secondhand way, by having a say in political parties, mentoring politicians, and telling us how to live and what to think when it comes to social issues (and some geopolitical ones, too, esp. in Judaism and Islam).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jivdom
Member Avatar
Resident Insomniac
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Arov
Apr 7 2007, 11:09 PM
It has VERY much to do with governance.

What we call "religious alignment" today was very different back then. The borders between religious faiths were simply geographical with the exception of the Israelites. In today's religions, the god or gods you worship are defined, and if you worship any other gods on the side, you are not considered part of the said religion.

Even nowadays, even worshipping the same god in a different name can get you discriminated against in so-called "free countries". And you would still be ostracized if you for instance made offerings to Vishnu but still went to Church on Sundays.

But thousands of years ago, the difference between gods across the Mediterranean world was only in name. Osiris was known as Hades in Greece; Artemis was known as Sekhmet in Egypt. But if you believed in something that could undermine the ruling order, that was met with intolerance. Religious persecution has always taken place for political and social reasons, and for no other reason.

Religious leaders, it follows, have more sway over what you worship now than they did back then. And they too contribute to the social hierarchy we call "government", if even in a secondhand way, by having a say in political parties, mentoring politicians, and telling us how to live and what to think when it comes to social issues (and some geopolitical ones, too, esp. in Judaism and Islam).

Firstly...
you're taking a very narrow view here.
Secondly...
Quote:
 
But thousands of years ago, the difference between gods across the Mediterranean world was only in name. Osiris was known as Hades in Greece; Artemis was known as Sekhmet in Egypt. But if you believed in something that could undermine the ruling order, that was met with intolerance

Again you are focusing on religious issues not Governance.
This is as simple as I can put this;
Previously the state told people what religion there were. Now Tony Blair cannot tell me to be a catholic in the same way he cannot tell me to be an atheist. See what I mean? In the past a political leader could say you ARE X religion and if you are not you ARE going to be in trouble (as little as a few centuries ago).

Quote:
 
Once religious institutions would tell the "people" their beliefs and such. That no longer really happens. This is partly due to the rise of things like Atheism and Hedonism and such but also because now someone might call themselves a Christian but not belief the world was created by god in 7 days and such in the same way a muslim might not pray 5 times to mehka. the Religious institutions have lost their power and that power is being turned over to society.

that was extremely poorly put. I should have taken more care over it.

My point is that now as a Muslim can be a Shiite or Sunni or an Isimilie and Blair cannot prevent that nor can Shirac or Berlusconi or anyone else in the western world. As a Christian I can be a baptist or catholic or a CofE. In the past that choice was not there. I could adopt views from other faiths but had I displayed them and aligned myself with them there would have been negative reprocussions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jivdom
Member Avatar
Resident Insomniac
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Religious leaders, it follows, have more sway over what you worship now than they did back then. And they too contribute to the social hierarchy we call "government", if even in a secondhand way, by having a say in political parties, mentoring politicians, and telling us how to live and what to think when it comes to social issues (


I think that's simply untrue in most cases.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jivdom
Member Avatar
Resident Insomniac
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
But thousands of years ago, the difference between gods across the Mediterranean world was only in name


That lacks a great degree of external validity there. You're generalising alot
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
VincentDantes
Member Avatar
Independant by Cynicism
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I think you guys are complicating you arguement by not agreeing on a certain period of time when you discuss the past. One seems to be talking about ancient Rome and Greece while the other is talking about medieval times.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arov
Member Avatar
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I'm talking about pre-Rome. 4,000 years ago, as Jivdom said.

Read the goddam book I posted a link to. It totally altered my conceptions on the ancient world. The Israelites were the first people to persecute other people solely on the basis of religion (the pagans). Other than that, religious clashes were few and far-between.

EDIT: but since religion and politics were intertwined back then, you could get killed for worshipping gods in ways that were subversive to the government (depending on where you were).

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
Religious leaders, it follows, have more sway over what you worship now than they did back then. And they too contribute to the social hierarchy we call "government", if even in a secondhand way, by having a say in political parties, mentoring politicians, and telling us how to live and what to think when it comes to social issues (




I think that's simply untrue in most cases.


Not in MY country. :P

Ever heard of the Republican Party?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bikeman
Member Avatar
Fresh Meat
[ *  * ]
Anarchy is the best way to get around on two wheels. Of course, there's always idiots out there, but, hey...

Of course, Anarchy can work fine if it's a very small group of people....it's a bit trickier when you get into big groups.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jivdom
Member Avatar
Resident Insomniac
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
bikeman
Apr 8 2007, 04:23 PM
Anarchy is the best way to get around on two wheels. Of course, there's always idiots out there, but, hey...

Of course, Anarchy can work fine if it's a very small group of people....it's a bit trickier when you get into big groups.

Yeah... It's catch 22 inn'it?

We want a perfectly altruistitc dictator to tell us what to do but only tell us what we want to do. That's what the whole system of western governance is based on and is the reason behnd democracy's establishment. We are torn between the unworkable liberal anarchy and the national big government that's gets so corrupted.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dupitable
Member Avatar
How do you like THAT side boob?
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
What do you mean western Governance? How are the Chines, Japanese, Philippines, Korean (either), Iranian, Saudi, Indian systems any better
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jivdom
Member Avatar
Resident Insomniac
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I did not say they were any better or any worse. I did not comment on non-western government.

"if men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, niether external nor internal controls on government would necessary. In framing a government whcih is to be adminstered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed;and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
-James Madison

That's what I was saying. Democracy is just a way of checking on the last aim.

EDIT::// That's why the idea "separation of powers" was made popular. A french political comentator called Baron de Montesquieu wrote about the checks and balances in the UK system and outline a doctrine he named "separation of powers". The USA's system was based on a misunderstanding of this and the french fifth republic based on that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arov
Member Avatar
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
...so now you think that anarchy is unworkable?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jivdom
Member Avatar
Resident Insomniac
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
No... My opinion has not changed. Anarchy is the system we would have if we trust everyone to follow their own moral compass and accept their responsibilities willingly. - It is perfection. - Perfection is the aim even if it is unreachable.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
VincentDantes
Member Avatar
Independant by Cynicism
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
So if someone is mentally deranged and their moral compass tells them its ok to rape children, or cut people up and I don't know...wear their skins or something. Then thats ok with you because their moral compass told them its ok.


Se you're assuming anarchy would work if everyones moral compass was the same...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dupitable
Member Avatar
How do you like THAT side boob?
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
So if someone is mentally deranged and their moral compass tells them its ok to rape children, or cut people up and I don't know...wear their skins or something.


Wait! It's not?

Oshi-
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jivdom
Member Avatar
Resident Insomniac
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
VincentDantes
Apr 9 2007, 05:41 PM
So if someone is mentally deranged and their moral compass tells them its ok to rape children, or cut people up and I don't know...wear their skins or something. Then thats ok with you because their moral compass told them its ok.


Se you're assuming anarchy would work if everyones moral compass was the same...

That is why it cannot work today or tomorrow.

Quote:
 
Se you're assuming anarchy would work if everyones moral compass was the same...

Morality is moving that way slowly but surely... In times gone by it was quite acceptable to kill someone for various reasons... Society ages and matures.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · OMAHD Archives · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3