I've been thinking

As lame as it is, philosphy is pretty neat.

I guess my big issue with it, though, is that it's mostly talk and little action. "Man's true nature is this," a philosopher might say and then proceed to not really do much about it. Publishing a book is all well and good, but who knows how permanent literacy is? Well, I'd say it's fairly permanent at this point, but how all-encompassing will it be? Mass literacy is relatively recent - we could probably celebrate it's sesquicentenial nowish - and even then it's only in the "first world."

It's a handy method for disseminating ideas, I guess. But will it always be around? Does that relegate philosophical discussion to the realm of the philosphers? Could it be argued, I wonder, that people like Marx, Chomsky or those guys who made those Utopian Societies here in the states (Oneida, Brook Farm etc.) are philosphers? They're dealing with fundamentals about human life and the way it should be.

I don't know.

I'm not really sure what I'm trying to say.

Although, I've been giving it some thought and I've decided that most governments are too big. Trying to deal with too many people and too many issues inside their borders. It grants too much power to too many people who are, ultimately, fallible. We haven't had a government yet that actually allows for easy changes in the status quo. The rich stay rich, the poor stay poor. And while I'm not sure I completely agree with the idea that a government is just a classed up mob that taxes instead of demanding protection money, I'm not sure I completely disagree with it, either.

Anarchosocialism. It's sounding like a better and better idea to me. Of course, it's not without it's own issues, but I really think that any system that tries to control more than one family is going to lead to oppression, suppression, suffering and poverty which may not be completely just and fair.

Well, I've been letting that foment in my noggin for a while. I think it still needs more BUT so far I'm with it.