Hi guest! As you can see, the new Wizard Forums has been revived, and we are glad to have you visiting our site! However, it would be really helpful, both to you and us, if you registered on our website! Registering allows you to see all posts, and make posts yourself, which would be great if you could share your knowledge and opinions with us! You could also make posts to ask questions!
What if I’m a king of my own kingdom in another dimension? What if people here are presidents, priests, or priestesses of their own covens or groups on earth?
I’ve honestly never thought about this question. I just don’t like being in a position where I have to run things, because I’d lose my freedom. So I’d rather reject that role and keep the ability to do what I want.
You're the one that quoted my post about Somalia to say: Robert Ramsay said: Remember folks, anarchy is not 'without order', it is 'without leaders'
So you're not remarking about an event that you know nothing about by quoting my post?
It's difficult to understand what you were trying to say to me by quoting my post. What did you mean?
Lol, what a loaded question!
if you ran things what government would you set up?
I think my ideal is not realistic, but I feel like a king or queen that loves the people they rule with all of their being would supply the best outcome.
The mess that happens when too many people are involved in decisions is pretty obvious, and local communities need to be able to operate under a 'what's best for us' principle. So governing on a large scale needs to be focused on large scale decisions only, without infringing on the rights of local needs. At the same time, the power to overrule the local nonsense needs to be in place when it becomes obvious that rules are abusive and not in the best interests of the local people. Local laws, not abusive top-down laws. No corporate control or regulation should be allowed, and the wealthy and corporations should have to pay for social needs before they get one penny of profits. No more stock market profits until the housing and employment issues are corrected, and watch how fast there are no more housing issues, or unemployment issues.
So, it is a very complicated situation. In particular with today's world. We can't allow total freedom, but we can't oppress either. We should respect the rights of individuals, and of communities, and stop with laws we can't even enforce, and no more special treatment for those with more wealth.
No industrial control, no oligarchy, no technocrats.
Government should focus on infrastructure, safety, health and welfare, while policing and jailing the scammers and liars that are currently running everything. I think if we seriously made strict rules and laws that prevent abuse, most people would be much better off.
We obviously need to get rid of the profit systems that feed off the misfortune of people, like the fake health care, pharma, dental greed, housing, education and other scams. Those should never be for profit, and it is way past time to get rid of the main cause of misery and bankruptcy, health scams called insurances, greed hospitals, greed everywhere.
I suppose, when it is ripe, we could just make an A.I. system of government?
Weak people try to garner themselves power-by-proxy, that's why they hanker for authoritarian or monarchist or some such form of government.
Anarchism would be 'ideal', but it's obviously completely unworkable on any large, technological scale. People who believe in that and still expect to live a lifestyle comparable to what they have now are delusional.
So, that leaves representational government. Which brought us trump lol
That helps clarify what you didn't mean, but it doesn't help clarify what you did mean by anarchy. What did you mean by anarchy? Living safe and soft behind the safety of a liberal society?
So we go back to anarchism, since none of the control system governments have worked? All I know is that there is no perfect system, specially when is an individual with a lot of control..
Not even a Philosopher King...
So we go back to anarchism, since none of the control system governments have worked? All I know is that there is no perfect system, specially when is an individual with a lot of control..
Not even a Philosopher King...
By anarchist governance I mean a decentralized network of voluntary groups, providing for society the needs of all individuals, I don't mean everybody does whatever the fuck they want, I mean everybody works for the needs of everybody... Once again, it's a utopian dream... But aren't we fucking magicians after all? If anyone knows how to do the impossible it should be us... Instead of falling for the same models that have ruined our society. And our home. Our planet
You're the one that quoted my post about Somalia to say: Robert Ramsay said: Remember folks, anarchy is not 'without order', it is 'without leaders'
So you're not remarking about an event that you know nothing about by quoting my post?
It's difficult to understand what you were trying to say to me by quoting my post. What did you mean?
Lol, what a loaded question!
if you ran things what government would you set up?
I think my ideal is not realistic, but I feel like a king or queen that loves the people they rule with all of their being would supply the best outcome.
The mess that happens when too many people are involved in decisions is pretty obvious, and local communities need to be able to operate under a 'what's best for us' principle. So governing on a large scale needs to be focused on large scale decisions only, without infringing on the rights of local needs. At the same time, the power to overrule the local nonsense needs to be in place when it becomes obvious that rules are abusive and not in the best interests of the local people. Local laws, not abusive top-down laws. No corporate control or regulation should be allowed, and the wealthy and corporations should have to pay for social needs before they get one penny of profits. No more stock market profits until the housing and employment issues are corrected, and watch how fast there are no more housing issues, or unemployment issues.
So, it is a very complicated situation. In particular with today's world. We can't allow total freedom, but we can't oppress either. We should respect the rights of individuals, and of communities, and stop with laws we can't even enforce, and no more special treatment for those with more wealth.
No industrial control, no oligarchy, no technocrats.
Government should focus on infrastructure, safety, health and welfare, while policing and jailing the scammers and liars that are currently running everything. I think if we seriously made strict rules and laws that prevent abuse, most people would be much better off.
We obviously need to get rid of the profit systems that feed off the misfortune of people, like the fake health care, pharma, dental greed, housing, education and other scams. Those should never be for profit, and it is way past time to get rid of the main cause of misery and bankruptcy, health scams called insurances, greed hospitals, greed everywhere.
I suppose, when it is ripe, we could just make an A.I. system of government?
Now this is a really thought out answer... Although I am still a supporteer of Anarchist governance, yours is the realistic view I think we need.... I am glad you didn't go for the "I would be a dictator, who rules the masses as it should"
Wow... Who knew so many fellow wizards are capitalist, colonialist, fascists.... Am I the only one who believes anarchism is the only true political path? Too many Julius Ebola wannabes
The only way to reach true enlightenment is by personal agency, you can not have personal agency if you have others telling you what to do....
Probably not the only one, but it's not exactly a successful form of (non)government. Anarchism is essentially what Haiti and southern Somalia have. Force is the only law that applies.
Like it or not, humans organize into hierarchical structures without outside influence, and teamwork allows us to do more together than any one person can do on their own. Anarchism would not have allowed for us to communicate with each other as it does require capitalism to manufacture computers and lay huge amounts of internet backbone infrastructure.
FWIW, I've always thought that most of us trend more towards the "leave me the F alone" style of libertarian, which is closer to what you're thinking than fascists and colonialists. YMMV I guess.
Weak people try to garner themselves power-by-proxy, that's why they hanker for authoritarian or monarchist or some such form of government.
Anarchism would be 'ideal', but it's obviously completely unworkable on any large, technological scale. People who believe in that and still expect to live a lifestyle comparable to what they have now are delusional.
So, that leaves representational government. Which brought us trump lol
A video of the man who tried to overthrow the local government in an Oregon town by poisoning other voters with deadly bacteria at local restaurant salad bars so his cult group could take over and control a town? Deported and demoted to the trash he is.
Basically, being in charge has been equal to the worst possible evil people on the planet, always. We only get to choose between bad or worse, with no other options, and that is supposed to be democratic. It is simply sad and tragic that the qualified good people are not chosen to lead, and we get stuck with people who worship an oligarchy voting for the criminal oligarchy and corporatocracy.
Usually, I'm live and let live, and 'leave me out of the human cesspool' mentality.
I agree with others here, that anarchism is far from ideal, because those who would abuse that for control and power would take advantage.
I'm surprised nobody with 'powers' has not melted the face off the orange clown felon and his flying minions...
A video of the man who tried to overthrow the local government in an Oregon town by poisoning other voters with deadly bacteria at local restaurant salad bars so his cult group could take over and control a town? Deported and demoted to the trash he is.
Basically, being in charge has been equal to the worst possible evil people on the planet, always. We only get to choose between bad or worse, with no other options, and that is supposed to be democratic. It is simply sad and tragic that the qualified good people are not chosen to lead, and we get stuck with people who worship an oligarchy voting for the criminal oligarchy and corporatocracy.
Usually, I'm live and let live, and 'leave me out of the human cesspool' mentality.
I agree with others here, that anarchism is far from ideal, because those who would abuse that for control and power would take advantage.
I'm surprised nobody with 'powers' has not melted the face off the orange clown felon and his flying minions...
I dont endorse him either , but I dont believe he did what you claim .
It was a form of government that got way out of control .
Osho gave up long before that ..... he WTF'd on his own brain by the snowball he created that he 'took a vow of silence ' . Years long . Then he broke it and was ready to give the world his wisdom that he gleaned from years in silence .
By this stage I had (tragically ) friends deeply embedded in the inside of this organisation . The video of his talk was rushed from the USA and they invited me to a private screening of it . I could not believe what I was watching . Osho clearly announced it had been a deliberate scam and he did it to his followers deliberately to 'teach them a lesson ' . On answering a question (press was present ) about similarities between himself and Krishnamurti he relpied that both believed people need to be their own guru's ; Krisnamurti came outright and said that and wlaked away from the stage as the the 'great new world teacher' of Theosophy . But I ( Osho said ) am trying to teach you the same by pretending to be a guru to show you how stupid you will become .
he then offered to demonstrate to the reporter asking questions and went through cycles of getting the room full of devotees to act like idiots , go silent , be serious , have hysterics .... all non'devotees ' present were astounded ... including me , sitting in a room of orange people who were loving what they seeing and calling it 'wisdom ' .
But by then the people that had been running the organisation were not having this disruption of their power base 9 remember Ma Ananad Shiela ... I think he name was .... Mrs 'Tough Titties ' ? and others . They had osho under wraps , drugged out and out on the farm . I doubt he was capable of much by then . Then a friend comes back home from 'the farm' totally freaked out and tells me some strange stories about having to throw all the food out (he worked in the kitchen ) , clean everything and start again , lunch delayed 4 hrs .
Had the 'salmonella dust' got into the kitchen somehow ... or did they just dodge a 'Jonestown' ? Then the stories came out about the poisonings and all hell broke loose .
I recently also just saw a doco on that place where their farm / commune / near city / ideal form of government was - from the perspective of the locals and town folk going from before they came, through all that and up to now .... worth watching !
Ideal form of government ? Didnt end up like that ( who got the 93 Rolls Royces ? )
On another note , I went to a community meeting this morning .... our 'ideal' form of govenment ? HOOOOO BOY I better got go there . I mean it could be ... if people didnt go on the way they do ... when I describe it, some say ot sounds ideal and impossibly good ... it is , but the fault is not within the system
Final word ; the ideal form of government must be ;
benevolent dictatorship with me in charge .
Post automatically merged:
Oh yeah .... Osho probably deserved it all . Ever heard of 'Bokonon' , a Kurt Vonnegut fictional guru . That all started of as a leg pull and got waaaaay out of control ... lot of similarities between Bokonon and Bhagwan .... if Bhagwan had come foist I would say Vonnegut copied him for the character .
But I think his comments about democracy are spot on .
Probably not the only one, but it's not exactly a successful form of (non)government. Anarchism is essentially what Haiti and southern Somalia have. Force is the only law that applies.
Like it or not, humans organize into hierarchical structures without outside influence, and teamwork allows us to do more together than any one person can do on their own. Anarchism would not have allowed for us to communicate with each other as it does require capitalism to manufacture computers and lay huge amounts of internet backbone infrastructure.
FWIW, I've always thought that most of us trend more towards the "leave me the F alone" style of libertarian, which is closer to what you're thinking than fascists and colonialists. YMMV I guess.
Have you heard of the Zomia region? That was in essence an anarchistic society in East Asia that did function... Of course, the geography of the region did allow for them to survive in a form of isolation, preventing the horrors of nations around it to affect it... But in essence it was a form of stateless self governance.... It probably would not work in the West... We are too far gone to be able to build something like it... At this point the only solution is for the Western Civilization to disappear, so it can be rebuilt from our mistakes... Solve et Coagula
Have you heard of the Zomia region? That was in essence an anarchistic society in East Asia that did function... Of course, the geography of the region did allow for them to survive in a form of isolation, preventing the horrors of nations around it to affect it... But in essence it was a form of stateless self governance.... It probably would not work in the West... We are too far gone to be able to build something like it... At this point the only solution is for the Western Civilization to disappear, so it can be rebuilt from our mistakes... Solve et Coagula
I haven't, but I am familiar with plenty of intentional communities, communes, etc. in the Western world. Many of those rely on isolation to prevent disturbances to what's a highly nuanced and often delicate (IMO) social balance for self-governance. They all sound lovely - and I've looked at more than a few both in the idealized shopping around and also understanding their processes.
The consistent thing about anarchist groups is that they rarely last more than 30ish years, and at that, nothing like how they started. They're delicate, and stand in opposite to brittle dictatorships. What they have in common is that individual personalities play a large role in keeping a group together and holding it together for a time. With communes or anarchist groups, that's not an individual taking charge, but more so a small group of people using their energy to smooth things over and build a community together. It seems like those people often arrive at a point of youthful exuberance ages into determination to maintain a status quo. Which isn't terrible, I'm not knocking that by any means. But it ends up making a system that is like a rural village as a snapshot in time, sealed in a bell jar.
What I've seen in some Sahelian cultures is a sort of similar makeup for a village chief and the chief's advisors. That becomes a hereditary and patrilinear system that is fine with the ebb and flow of populations, and mostly about being able to come together to resist or flee from threats. While intentional communities and communes have formal systems for everyone to have their opinion, it's informal for the most part, but all-village meetings (one old person from each family) do exist.
And while people do understand they live in a region and a country and have a flag, etc. - it's really so removed from their daily life that it's functionally nothing to them 99.5% of the time. What people do in the capital is so foreign, and has such little impact, that they are defacto isolated from the Western-recognized government by virtue of that government not having the resources to know more than the community exists. But the community persists, as it has for hundreds of years.
Which is all to say that if your community and self-governance structure is so delicate that other things simply existing and coming into contact with you can throw it all off - how exactly is that a demonstration that form of governance is "good"? It's not robust enough to survive under anything other than its own weight (which over a long enough timeline may prove not to be the case). Sahelian villages typically center on familial lines and the support network that can literally mean risk of death to leave. Communes don't have that, and Western Civilization allows for equal or greater resource opportunities if you leave - so the commune version incubates children who leave and don't return. It doesn't make a village, just stories those children tell friends in college "Oh, yeah, so I grew up on a commune. I didn't wear pants until I was 10 years old."
I wholeheartedly agree with you that they last as long as they do, because of isolation.... It is honestly heartbreaking to think that we cannot have a good system.. because we are just an overly self centered culture and civilization, the West is no longer the great civilization it thought it was.. modern oligarchies, fascism and pseudo communist dictatorships, techno feudalist menchildren with pseudo racialist accelerationist dreams of a dark transhumanist kind made sure the West will no longer be the great civilization it wanted to be
What if people here are presidents, priests, or priestesses of their own covens or groups on earth?
