/ wrote:Autonomy; without corruption, I believe the people have the ability to decide what is best for themselves.
so you would give a corrupt government MORE power than one that wasn't corrupt?
It's a give and take equation, if we have criminals; we need police, if we have criminal police; we need internal affairs.
If we have no criminals, we would not need any of the above.
I honestly believe greed and selfishness is the main reason society doesn't function without government. We have taxes because no one wants volunteer to fix the roads we all use, agricultural subsidy so farmers grow what needs to be grown instead of worrying for themselves, books upon books of laws constantly being updated to prevent the exploitation that would occur otherwise.
If all of that was fixed, and the people did good for the sake of doing good, I don't see any reason to uphold any rule that the people themselves don't desire.
Now of course, since I haven't taken a magical pill, this is a biased view to the subjectivity of what is "corruption" and what is "ideal".
Is an ant colony "idyllic" because they work to promote their own group's expansion without any infighting?
Is a group of cacti "idyllic" because they just sit there, not consuming excess resources or being attacked?
A lack of government probably does do away the authoritative efficiency it takes to raise an army to fight martians or whatever, but I think that humans have enough common sense that, without greed, they probably wouldn't end the world anytime soon.
If the question is what I believe a better non-corrupt government would be to raise efficiency for things like urban planning, I would guess something resembling feudalism (or at least what historians redefined feudalism as), divided manors managed by a lord/lady, lords being managed to the count(ess) of their county, counts reporting to dukes, and so on up to the Ruler of Earth.
john9blue wrote:only if he believes autonomy is the best option in the real world