Why? Because human evolution isn't a problem or because you don't think it can be changed? The first one is a massive cop out and reinforces my opinion of you. The second I absolutely disagree with because I see lots of ways society has interfered with natural evolution e.g. medical treatments that meant people who would have naturally died in childhood today live healthy, normal lives.
No because it's so complex and involves so many different issues that there is no "solution" that change comes naturally depending on the environment.
There is no "end game" to evolution or global politics it will be what it HAS to be not what people want it to be.
any fixed system can be manipulated and broken and more importantly become outdated and unwanted by the people.
Who has said anything about stateless socialism?
Erm permabanned that was who i was talking to and was what i was talking about?
Once again you can only offer criticism and nothing in the way of answers or thoughts of your own. Sure I can accept that things will never be perfect, but people should at least try to make things better - that's why we have things like the police, the army, schools and hospitals. One thing's for sure, the 1% don't sit back and say "what will be will be" - they use their power and influence for their own benefit. Why can't the 99% do the same in an albeit different way? Isn't democracy supposed to be one person, one vote? not one person, one vote then a whole load of behind the scenes lobbying?
Never said thing wont get better in fact if you've ever actually read my political view you'll see that i actually believe things will continue as they have done for the past 50 thousand years, a gradual slow improvement as people and systems change.
I don't believe in fixed systems of government or laws or culture because they do not last.
maybe this is because I'm looking at the long run not simply my life time, I don't believe "great revolutions" change things for the better but a more gradual change over decades and even centuries is a far more prudent approach that will achieve the best result.
The ideas permabanned and others (dolphs etc) espouse on both sides of the fence fall down because they require Everyone to do the same.
dolphs requires no states to carry out socialism or protectionism permas requires everyone to be truly altruistic, I just don't think you can unite 7 billion people under one system at least not in a life time or even a few, slowly over time things will improve as we're seeing with places like china and India and eventually places like Africa, but i believe in a more realistic approach yes it doesn't solve everything NOW or even quickly but it is more likely to happen.
You can't win the game or predict the final moves to make a final system the best we can do is all make little improvements, and the best thing about this is it doesn't matter that not everyone thinks the same, because as thinsg change gradually loopholes are closed and created slowly over time keeping a balance.
With one large change the loop holes all come out at once and you have immense problems because of it (russia during the Stalinist era etc with black marketeers and the states attempts to control the people to enforce their ideals,and now Iraq with every group fighting in the vacuum created by the sudden change).
We can all talk idealistic fantasies about our respective utopia's but that solves nothing and only causes problems, a more realistic and patient approach is what will perform best (as it has historically).
If you disagree fair enough, go try your revolution but don't be surprised when people try to stop you and it ends badly and in suffering for all.
So you'd have to imprison them... oh wait, and so it starts.
