What about a Democratic Communist Republic? There is a president elected by the citizens, a senate to make and change laws, and the government takes all the money, buys goods, and then gives everyone the same things. No taxes to complain about, no neighbor rivalries over lawnmowers, everyone is equal and has equal things. Everyone is also egually important. (The trash guy is just as important as the doctor because without the trash guy, the town would be so unsanitary that the doctor would be over whelmed. )
I agree with you completely on the democratic part, but with the garbage man/doctor analogy your arguement fails. If the garbage man and a doctor got the same exact rewards, even if their jobs are equally important, no one would be a doctor. This is becuase i, as a sixteen year old, could be a garbage man right now, but to be a doctor i would have to go to eight years of college. Furthermore, i would work nearly twice the hours of a garbage man. Now i personally would make the sacrifice, but most people would not, since their is no incentive. Therefore, you need to have some different classes in order for their to be any doctors, engineers, etc.
I like to twist the definition of Communism from “everyone equal” to “government controlled economy”. The government controls all aspects of the economy, and gives everyone a job. Then, it gives everyone thier basic needs, such as food, clothing, healthcare, etc. Then, based on a combination of the effort, skill, and importance of your job, they give you a certain amount of “dollars” to buy luxury goods from the government. To combat lazyness, you simply cut the luxury funds of anyone who is not working, or who’s supervizors think are workering well below compacity. They would still be fine, but they would not be very happy and would have ot get back to work. injured people would still recieve luxury funds, obviously. Jobs would always be available, because the government could always build another factory, even if there is no demand for the product. I am a communist, but more of a realist.
On the topic of anarchy, i think it is going to fail pretty bad. I beleive Falk said the people would band together to build a hsopital if need be, but once it is built staffing it would be horrible. Under anarchy, the doctors could just go as the please, and if they did not like a patient, they just would not treat him. Furthermore, individual doctors may have been making mroe money before the hopsital showed up with private visits, and would sabatoge the operation. With no laws, their are just too many unkowns.
On a philisophical level, it just could not exists for long. First, i you had no laws, the peole would become increasingly slefish and amoral, becuase thats what anarchistic society breeds. Wihtout a government to initiate propoganda, the people would be more prone to follow instinctive urges. Second, it simply would not last do to desires of power and control. Groups would band together to structure their soictey out of saftey, and to be able to oppress others. Within this society, thye would create their own laws, which would make it something else. With such structure, these groups would more powerful than the inidividual (the group is alwys more powerful and more important than the individual :P ) and owuld be able to conquer the surrounding land. As long as the original people were not fascist dictators, life would be safer under their rule, and the poeple woudl most likly welcome a relief form the constant battle of survival that occurs in an anarchist system. Anarchy could only be temporary, like in Civilization III :lol: .
Wow, that was alot longer than expected, ill stop now