My first point, is psychology, and it's role in political theory/ethics. Many people fail to realize that psychology is an inherent part of an individual's intellectual conquests. And when I mean psychology, I mean genuine psychology, or your individual ego, and the reasons behind your choice. Not that watered-down bullshit they teach you community college. You must first realize that psychology is the driving factor behind politics, economics, philosophy, etc. Anyways, since you were a child, you've been taught by your parents, your teachers, your mentors, etc., that your behavior was wrong. I'm sure as you read this, you're saying to yourself, 'of course, all kids need rules, or else they'll become bad kids!'. My contention, is that, while certain behavior is objectively 'wrong', when you're a kid, the last thing you need to be learning (sub-contextually) is that your actions are wrong. That's what happens when someone tells you not to do something. You're being told (on a subconscious level) that what you are doing was wrong. Studies have proven that, when any human being (of sound mind) is told something by another human being, no matter their relation, they will always believe what is said by the other person. If you're fat, and someone calls you fat, no matter how hard you try, you'll always doubt yourself, and think to yourself 'maybe they're right'. You can deny it up and down, but this is completely normal, in fact, it's part of us. We can't help it. This plays into our childhood in a HUGE way. At this stage in our lives, we are extremely easily convinced and controlled. So imagine, being told subconsciously during your most impressionable years, that your behavior is wrong. The more you're told it, the more it sticks with you later in life. What am I getting at? You can see this in the ethics and politics of others. I'm going to use the two majority 'schools' of thought, conservatism, and liberalism, as my examples. There are, of course, sub-sects with minor differentiations, but the underlying point is still true for both. Liberals and Conservatives have a core belief in their ideology, and it's groomed into them from a young age. They believe that humans/human nature are inherently bad, and must be controlled to make them good. When I mean 'bad', I don't mean 'evil', what I mean is--they think humans make bad decisions. Some contextual examples include Conservatives' fear of all things sexual. Sex for many conservatives is a very strict taboo. They rally against pornography, adultery, unorthodox sexuality (Homosexuals, bi-sexuals, etc.), etc. Their views on economics also reflect this, but it's a bit more hidden. They believe in social-darwinism to the extreme. If you were a failure, you should have to suffer. This is the 'bad' side of humanity, and all you need to do to 'fix' your 'bad' side, is to work hard enough. Some examples for liberals include their distrust of economics, and that humanity's inherent affinity for doing bad interferes with their ability to be fair, and therefore must be regulated. This is why they trend towards ideas like socialism and communism. Another good example, is Political Correctness. Liberals love telling people how they can, and can't address and interact with each other. You can't offend x, y, z. You can't say a, b, c. It's impolite to do q, r, s. Etc. Ultimately, what I'm getting at, is that, from a young age, people are taught their natural desires are bad. They are bad. The only way to make them 'right' is through control. Control contextually implies that something is wrong, and therefore needs to be fixed. What happens when kids are controlled by their parents and teachers, is that they learn their desires are bad, and they need to be controlled. When they grow up with this insecurity, they project it. If you're familiar with psychology, you're most likely familiar with psychological projection, if not, it's basically where individuals will project their insecurities outward. So when you hear an adult, or even a young-adult say that something needs to be controlled (economically/socially/etc.), what they're doing is rehashing their own self-hatred and projecting it outwards, onto others. This, in my opinion is the core problem in the world. I think humans are inherently good, and do not need to be controlled. I think the lack of control leads to order. I believe order is emergent, and that control is anti-thetical to order. This is demonstrated in nature. There's no control in nature. There's no rhyme or reason. No, instead, you have every living being, creature, plant, cell, every atom and sub-atom, all working together, in tandem, to seek an end to their desires. Obviously humans are the only completely autonomous species, but my point is still relevant. Order comes from the bottom up, not the top down. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlzilMXWMcg"]YouTube - Spontaneous Order[/ame] This is called self-organization. It arises out of the individual interactions that every individual faces. A good example, is this video of traffic in Hanoi. There are no traffic lights, no stop-signs, no traffic conductors. All there is, is a bunch of motorists who are seeking their end (Which is to transport from Point A to Point B). What you don't see are the individual actions and reactions of every single individual, which is what makes this seemingly dangerous intersection completely safe. Notice how the tourist in the video disrupts the traffic, because they presume there needs to be control. Control ends up screwing up the delicate balance of self-organization. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzjifmHavAQ"]YouTube - self-organization in hanoi traffic[/ame] People usually flip out when I suggest we should get rid of (most) traffic laws. They say, 'oh, it'll be chaos on the road! People will die by the thousands, we NEED laws!'. And to that, I laugh. They're projecting their self-hatred that was ingrained into their minds since the day they were born. We don't need traffic laws. We don't need traffic lights. What you need is trust in your fellow man, and the realization that you don't need to be controlled. That leads me to my next point. Does control even work? I say no. Have you ever had an alcoholic (or any other form of substance abuse) parent/family member/friend, that you were close with, and had daily interactions with? If you haven't, have you at least seen the show on A&E, called Intervention? I can say from first-hand experience, that control doesn't fix problems. My father was an alcoholic, and one day he was 'forced' to try and fix his illness. He became sober, but another problem arose--his anger. He was then 'forced' into fixing his anger. After his anger was 'fixed' another problem arose, he found a new drug to abuse, cocaine. You get the point? His problem was not the usage of emotional outlets (drugs and anger), the problem was something inside. Something was bothering him. Eventually he went back to drinking, and became the old person he was before we tried to 'fix' him. One day, his father got ill, and died in the hospital. I never got the chance to ask my father what bothered him so much that he drank, he unfortunately passed away a few years ago, but after the death of his father, he was a new man. Something happened between him and his father that made him what he was, and no amount of therapy, no drug, no nothing could have fixed him, unless the ROOT of his problem was solved. The same thing happens in that show I mentioned, Intervention. Getting people off a drug is not a solution. It's a temporary band-aid. What will end up happening, is another, newer, problem will arise. Then you get to the point where, you realize the problem is not substance abuse, but a psychological problem that needs to be addressed. It's like a game of whack-a-mole. You push one problem away, and another arises. Control is not the answer to problems, addressing the root cause of the problem is. What does it all mean? There is nothing wrong with humans. I think most of the problems we face in the world, are due to control. Murderers, Rapists, Psychopathic CEO's who wish to exploit every last man and woman on Earth for economic gain... all can be traced back to control, somehow, some way. All of our Economic problems, control. Imagine a world, where everyone didn't project their own self-hatred. You give me a problem, and I can probably trace it back to control, in some form or another. The solution, to me, is the most natural system. A system where, individuals can freely associate with each other, are free from coercion (control), and are allowed to grow up, and learn themselves the lessons of life. A system that promotes emergence, self-organization, and spontaneous order. Economically, socially, and in our Government. A society where police wouldn't be needed, because some children wouldn't grow up being controlled by repressive parents, and crime would be non-existent. A society where you wouldn't need regulators, because businesses would realize that we are all in this together, and exploiting and destroying the Earth, and others, drags us all down. Is it utopian? I posit that it's utopian to suggest that every 4 years we get a new 'chance' to elect 'our' guy, who will fix everything, and never does. Then, after 4 years, we try and get 'our guy 2.0 (it's different this time)' into office. What's that they say about doing things again and again expecting different results... oh right, insanity. Or, a system that tells people what to do, and exerts control over all areas of life, from your kitchen sink to your car brakes. My idea brings humans as close to nature as you can get. As Richard Feynman said, 'the inconceivable nature of nature'. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b6DpT2YLI4"]YouTube - "The Inconceivable Nature of Nature" - Richard Feynman[/ame] Inspiration for this thread from aaron8803 (Control + My Greatest Idea) and Neilsio (One United Idea).