INTP Central=ANARCHY?

[Dr. Haight]

If INTP Central was a system of governance, would it be one that you would label as Anarchy, Libertarianism, an Authoritarian Dictatorship, or a Fascist regime? And, of course, why?

For me, well I don't know yet...so, persuade me.

[Zero Angel]

I would have to say its more like a republic than anything else. Not exactly democratic as it has none of the rules that are supposed to keep democratic governments in check, the government is instead composed of a committee who rules with absolute power, though with the consensus of the people.

[Edmond Zedo]

Those choices don't make sense.

[Snowflake]

Anarchy

[Claverhouse]

It's a mild semi-anarchy, with disturbing overtones of authoritarianism whenever admins decide to do anything. Which through enormous self-denial is rare.

That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange æons, even death may die.

Don't wake us.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Snowflake]

I guess you could say there is authoritarianism.

But even anarchists are capable of removing people from a group, does that mean they are authoritarian? E.g., a kkk group hanging someone. I guess it has to do with context.

[Dr. Haight]

I would have to say its more like a republic than anything else. Not exactly democratic as it has none of the rules that are supposed to keep democratic governments in check, the government is instead composed of a committee who rules with absolute power, though with the consensus of the people.

OK, so, it has the consensus of the people, because the people are free to come and go whenever they see fit. So if they stay, then they are conceding to the rules set by the commitee. That seems accurate to me. Additionally, the only real threat to the people is the possibility of exile; so they are not a military state of any kind. But, I am not sure it would be considered a Republic because that would--I think--require that the government was elected by the people. I think we can agree that they are, "a committee who rules with absolute power," that seems correct to me. But I still need more information, since, this agreement only rules out the Anarchy choice, although I'm not even really sure about that either.

Help me out dudes! I'm an INTP. If I don't figure this out, it's going to drive me crazy.

[Snowflake]

The reason I claim the group to be arachical is because people basically do what they want, and the mods, a select group of people, rule as they see fit. There are no set rules, basically, even the posted official rules aren't really followed.

The thing that is uncharacteristic about this is that the mods hold the power, like an elitist faction or sth, and are well secured in maintaining it.

[Claverhouse]

Well, look'it this way: it's a private club which anyone can join, or be excluded from; run by the standing committee, to which invitation is by co-option, not election. Theoretically anyone can be exiled for no reason, but fortunately we have extremely low standards.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Dr. Haight]

--Snowflake,

I agree with your observation, but I am not sure about your conclusion. I do concede that the committee is made up of people who participate in the activities of the community, while also governing the people. That does sound like Anarchy, doesn't it? Very confusing. Let me think about this for a minute.

[kuranes]

What would be the difference between fascist and authoritarian ?

[ApeTheDog]

It's probably a dictatorship, coupled with a meritocracy.

Dictatorship first and foremost, because Heero has absolute power.
Meritocracy because, I think, moderators and admins are picked because they do a good job and are proficient in what they do (for example, file cabinet is really good with his php stuff. He became a tech admin because of that - not because he was friends with anybody. And the moderators, in theory - I can hardly say this about a group that involves myself - are picked because they are good at moderating, and levelheaded enough to not abuse their power)

[Dr. Haight]

--Claverhouse,
Yes, I agree. And I think I mentioned something to that effect, but your clarity is very helpful. Given that I agree with your description, the question still remains: What system of governance would that most closely represent?

[Claverhouse]

I truly hate to make that analogy, but I'd say it's most like the Republic of Venice, with file cabinet as Doge.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Dr. Haight]

--ApeTheDog,

I think I agree with that, yet I am a little confused.
Can you think of a government system past, or present, that would be similar to your description; that would allow me to conceptualize your observation?

[Zero Angel]

Yep, you pretty much articulated my thoughts better then I could.

It's probably a dictatorship, coupled with a meritocracy.

Dictatorship first and foremost, because Heero has absolute power.
Meritocracy because, I think, moderators and admins are picked because they do a good job and are proficient in what they do (for example, file cabinet is really good with his php stuff. He became a tech admin because of that - not because he was friends with anybody. And the moderators, in theory - I can hardly say this about a group that involves myself - are picked because they are good at moderating, and levelheaded enough to not abuse their power)
Meritocracy is a good description, however 'merit' is determined by either a single person or those already in 'power' therefore it can be said that even a dictator (autocratic) who votes in lackeys can be said to run a meritocracy given that that leader has determined merit by his own criteria.

[Dr. Haight]

I truly hate to make that analogy, but I'd say it's most like the Republic of Venice, with file cabinet as Doge.
Claverhouse :ph34r:

Roman Republic of Venice? I'm not familiar with that government, but were they a Republic in the sense that they were elected in some manner or another? I don't know the exact definition of a Republic, so I think I need to get my political dictionary, but I think an election would have to be involved. Were you guy's elected in the formal sense of the word?

[Claverhouse]

What would be the difference between fascist and authoritarian ?

Fascism ( which is in no way the same as nazi, although allied and with some similarities of structure ) is based upon the ruling popular single mass party and glorifies patriotism, militariarianism and the use of force. Authoritarian merely uses whatever force is necessary to maintain order in the government's interest, so any form of government may be authoritarian. It can take or leave anything like patriotism, religion, the military, the democracy-ideal, and ideology just as it wishes, not being wedded to any except sometimes as an excuse if it wants.

Mussolini was a fascist, and bound to his party's ideology, and subject to their dismissal: Franco was a pragmatic authoritarian who had not the slightest interest in ideology.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Dr. Haight]

Meritocracy is a good description, however 'merit' is determined by either a single person or those already in 'power' therefore it can be said that even a dictator (autocratic) who votes in lackeys can be said to run a meritocracy given that that leader has determined merit by his own criteria.

In a meritocracy, how does the "dictator" gain power? And, are the people he represents free to come and go as the please without retribution?

[Claverhouse]

Roman Republic of Venice? I'm not familiar with that government, but were they a Republic in the sense that they were elected in some manner or another? I don't know the exact definition of a Republic, so I think I need to get my political dictionary, but I think an election would have to be involved.

As you may have guessed I detest all republics, but Venice had a real doozie: the people had possibly even less power than a present-day average citizen of the USA has to determine his/her country's foreign policy ( or most else ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Venice


Were you guy's elected in the formal sense of the word?

Don't be silly.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Dr. Haight]

Fascism ( which is in no way the same as Nazi, although allied and with some similarities of structure ) is based upon the ruling popular single mass party and glorifies patriotism, militariarianism and the use of force. Authoritarian merely uses whatever force is necessary to maintain order in the government's interest, so any form of government may be authoritarian. It can take or leave anything like patriotism, religion, the military, the democracy-ideal, and ideology just as it wishes, not being wedded to any except sometimes as an excuse if it wants.
Claverhouse :ph34r:

I don't want to get off track here, but I would love to discuss this in another thread; maybe in the morning. I don't really know if I agree with everything you have stated above, and I think this needs to be worked out, yet I will say this now: Everything in your description seems like Nazism to me. But, again, I could be wrong.

Thanks Claverhouse.

I will read that, think about it, and post my thoughts after I have sex with my wife. But with that aside, I didn't add, "Republic", to the poll because this does not seem like one in any actual way that I am aware of. And my guess is that the Republic of Venice was a Republic in name only, similar to Hitler calling his government Socialism.

[Claverhouse]

Everything in your description seems like Nazism to me. But, again, I could be wrong.

*curious*
Which ? I described two different things: fascism and authoritarianism. Fascism can be authoritarian, but so can nazism, or liberal democracy, or aristocracy, or plutocracy, or monarchy, or communism; but in all these cases it is a choice of the rulers to be authoritarian or not, it is a style of governance, not the government. ( Which government may be communist or nazi, say, and thus bound to certain ideals and aims specific to it's belief-system: but it still has the choice whether to achieve these aims through authoritarian means or through other methods. All things being equal, they usually go as authoritarian as they dare to. )


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Claverhouse]

And my guess is that the Republic of Venice was a Republic in name only, similar to Hitler calling his government Socialism.

That's two separate things:

a/ there are an enormous number of different republican constitutions. They do not have to be in any way similar to the US model to qualify as a republic. Venice, being an oligarchy of the wealthy and powerful was an archetypal republic. Any state that is not a monarchy is a republic.

b/ the national socialists were extremely socialistic: they used state power to improve the lives of the poor against the rich --- they invented paid holidays for instance and state-run holiday breaks for workers; they were far greener than any socialist party of today; they hated credit capitalism; they nationalised some industry etc.; they instituted public works... but they were split ( just like all parties, including soviet communism ) between the left, the Strassers and Rohm and the SA, and the right, Hitler, Himmler and the SS who had made an accord with the capitalist industrialists and the Army to hold on to power. During the war period the nazi left were crushed, but this wouldn't have been a constant, had they won the war: eg: the left might have established dominance.

And, of course, they had much in common with soviet Russia, from whom they learnt so much. There is no purpose in saying soviet communism was not socialism, merely because of it's state-capitalism and brutalities; it was still a form of socialism, and so was nazism. All socialisms are against individualism: and not necessarily wrong for that, since whilst we all adore our own individual striving, unchecked it is merely purest anarchy.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Dr. Haight]

Claverhouse:"*curious*
Which ?"

(I was speaking to Nazism not being equal to Fascism. My sentence stated,"in the parentheses," but I think you edited the sentence while I was commenting, so I changed it in response, or maybe I thought I saw something that I an fact did not; I don't know. Either way, somewhere in the back of my little brain, I seem to have a solid belief that Nazi Germany was a Fascist state. Again, could be wrong...and if you are willing to put in the effort, I can be persuaded; I'm a reasonable guy)

[Dr. Haight]

there are an enormous number of different republican constitutions. They do not have to be in any way similar to the US model to qualify as a republic. Venice, being an oligarchy of the wealthy and powerful was an archetypal republic. Any state that is not a monarchy is a republic.
:

I agree with your first, second, and third sentences above, totally, completely, and without hesitation. However, the last sentence is a bit perplexing. Could you have a hereditary ruling family, that also governed as a dictatorship, in the sense that it did not allow its citizens to vote and therefore was not a republic by definition? I would say yes.



b/ the national socialists were extremely socialistic: they used state power to improve the lives of the poor against the rich --- they invented paid holidays for instance and state-run holiday breaks for workers; they were far greener than any socialist party of today; they hated credit capitalism; they nationalised some industry etc.; they instituted public works... but they were split ( just like all parties, including soviet communism ) between the left, the Strassers and Rohm and the SA, and the right, Hitler, Himmler and the SS who had made an accord with the capitalist industrialists and the Army to hold on to power. During the war period the nazi left were crushed, but this wouldn't have been a constant, had they won the war: eg: the left might have established dominance.

And, of course, they had much in common with soviet Russia, from whom they learnt so much. There is no purpose in saying soviet communism was not socialism, merely because of it's state-capitalism and brutalities; it was still a form of socialism, and so was nazism. All socialisms are against individualism: and not necessarily wrong for that, since whilst we all adore our own individual striving, unchecked it is merely purest anarchy.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

OK.
So, in your opinion, communism is just an extreme form of socialism, and the two are therefore inextricably intertwined to the point where it is impossible to disassociate on from the other? I agree that they are both leftist ideologies that are similar in their base philosophy with one being more moderate than the other. Yet I do believe that their is a distinction that can be made between the two. And once that distinction is made, Hitler and Stalin would be on one side of the line and Socialism will be on the other.

I am hesitating here because I want to distinguish between rhetoric and reality. In my opinion, a nation can call itself whatever it would like, yet in reality, the form of government they have may be completely different then their name would imply. Therefore, I am speaking here to what the were, rather than what their propaganda would like us to believe.

But don't get me wrong, even if my prose does not articulate this, I understand your position.

Now, back to the topic:

I will make you a deal. I will read the link you supplied, see if I have any other literature on the Republic of Venice (I am sure I do somewhere, it's just a matter of finding it), read it, and if you are correct, we can add, "Republic" to the poll, and begin a discussion on whether or not INTP Central is, or is not, a Republic.

Thanks man.
It's 11:05 pm here and I have to get up early; good night.

[Dr. Haight]

I will make you a deal. I will read the link you supplied, see if I have any other literature on the Republic of Venice (I am sure I do somewhere, it's just a matter of finding it), read it, and if you are correct, we can add, "Republic" to the poll, and begin a discussion on whether or not INTP Central is, or is not, a Republic.


I read your link, and I still have to believe my original assumption, since it seems that the Republic of Venice had a democratic element in their Great Council which I do not see here at INTP Central (this not an indictment, just an observation). Were the administrators and moderators elected to to their positions through a vote by the forum members?

OK, I'm gonna vote on this now, so I can stop thinking about it. So, here is my opinion based on the limited amount of information that has been provided for me (another words, "Thanks for not helping butt heads").

Anarchist? No, since the property is the server and software for this forum and they are used in common, but not owned in common.

Libertarian? Maybe. There is private property as mentioned above, people are free to come and go as the please, the government is very limited with respect to "helping and assisting" the people, there is no taxation, and becoming a government employee in voluntary.

Authoritarian? Maybe. The INTPC government can make an arbitrary decision without the consent of the people, yet we still have the freedom to leave if we oppose the decision. And authoritarian regimes generally tax the hell out of its populace, which is not present here.

Fascist? No. There seems to be to much freedom involved here justify this position.

So...shit...I guess, given the selection, I'll vote Libertarian.

[ApeTheDog]

I read your link, and I still have to believe my original assumption, since it seems that the Republic of Venice had a democratic element in their Great Council which I do not see here at INTP Central (this not an indictment, just an observation). Were the administrators and moderators elected to to their positions through a vote by the forum members?

Yes, they were. Though only by a small minority of the forum members - namely -the other administrators and moderators.

[Dr. Haight]

Yes, they were. Though only by a small minority of the forum members - namely -the other administrators and moderators.

Oh shit, now you tell me...I already voted!
Sounds like a miniature Athenian Democracy, or US democracy for that matter.
Thanks Dog.

[coffeezombie]

Oh shit, now you tell me...I already voted!
Sounds like a miniature Athenian Democracy, or US democracy for that matter.
Thanks Dog.
It's neither. It is more like oligarchical rule, although the people who own the software for this place could hypothetically remove any of the people who don't own this place at any time.

[Dr. Haight]

It's neither. It is more like oligarchical rule, although the people who own the software for this place could hypothetically remove any of the people who don't own this place at any time.

So given the choices in the poll, I guess the libertarian vote wasn't so far off the mark.

[Claverhouse]

But not libertarian for you.


Claverhouse :ph34r:


However, the last sentence is a bit perplexing. Could you have a hereditary ruling family, that also governed as a dictatorship, in the sense that it did not allow its citizens to vote and therefore was not a republic by definition? I would say yes.

Sure, it's still a republic if it doesn't adhere to monarchy... I only count monarchy by primogeniture --- > a defined succession system by placement in order of birth, so there's no doubt who the heir is --- as real monarchy. The systems you mention could either be a single man exercising monarchic powers as president and making sure his favourite son or daughter succeeds him to the office, or a ruling family who form an oligarchic group directing the nation with only a private power-structure within the family to decide issues. Neither would be monarchies and republican forms are preserved. The first occurs a lot in the third world, whilst Arab states like the Saudis would be an instance of the second.