I haven't had the chance to try DMT yet. I have tried many other psychedelics however and I always like to ponder politics and governing policies. I like to ask questions such as:
What makes the best government?
Is this government too ideal, could corruption or other fallacies become it?
What would make a better government going off of its negatives?
Etc. All those questions have many sub questions obviously.

In my experience hallucenogens seem to push out your inner perceptions and experiences and make you aware of them. Depending on your peer group or cultural background, the use of hallucenogens will most likely further your belief in your political background. It can however make you aware of its negatives, something that some people were unable/did not wish to look at before.

Regardless of peer/cultural background, I am wondering what DMT users have thought of politics and government? I would also like to know if you had previous different theories before trying DMT and thinking about it. Although I know there are many variables, this isn't an experiement just a connecting question.

I would want budhists to rule the world. The worst case scenario would be that nothing would change. Or, no. If tibetan budhists would rule the wrold, in the worst case scenario we would all be eating yak-butter for breakfast.

DMT hasn't affected my views on politics. However, marijuana has probably done the most for my opinions. It allows me to think relatively clearly while pondering such things. LSD as well. My friends and I were tripping on acid and we went to McDonalds or something. We couldn't help but laugh our asses off at the concept of money. We spent half the day discussing how we could do it better, but I don't think we came to any real solutions. We were pretty out of it. I still can't think of a better system for the exchange of goods and services, but I'm convinced it needs to go.

Anarchy and peace is what I want...

*Note*- This is probably not the anarchy your thinking about.

I understand anarchism..

It is too ideal and couldn't happen from an applicable stand point.

I personally believe in a radical libertarian like government, where the sole purpose of the government was protection against others, and the people would spy on the government not the government on the people.

You understand anarchism?

I bet you understand Taoism too, don't you?

I do understand anarchism, I am well versed in political theories, but I do not understand your sarcasm or what you are trying to imply.

I'm sorry I'm not trying to be an asshole.

The following is not sarcastic-

Tell me what anarchism is?

I hate all governments that think that they exist to tell others how to live their life. The only role of a government is to protect individual liberty.

Anarchist is no government fuck the world man1!!!1!!

jk-

The problem with answering this question is that there are many individual variations within the anarchism political theory, that answering this question while talking to an individual from within this political theory (you in this case) can cause great anger and frustration. In its most bland, generic and overall sence, Anarachism is the political theory that society should function without leaders/government who almost always make it worse.

Going any deeper into this subject gets weird. And hypocritical and starts to not make sence.

At the risk of being offensive, many liberal teenager like to consider themselves anarachist and believe the theory has to do with a world that can be controlled by chaos. Some of these liberal teenagers are slightly more mature (albeit slighty more wrong in their economic theories) and consider anarchism a "left" philosophy and therefor must install communistic type economic/social theory, without realizing that they just installed government back into play, unless they can justify the lack of government by saying "oh but this is how society should work, society should want to support each other and not have to." But this is ideal, and ideal doesn't work when it comes to politics.

A better versed anarchist would agree more to the side of capitalism because capitalism in its purest sence has no government regulations or interference. NO GOVERNMENT! But anarchist capitalist would probally disagree with loans and shit like that. Of course there are many ways to look at it, and if someone wanted to be a piece of shit they could just look at capitalism and call it "oppressive like a form of government."

There are so many different subtypes that certain anarchists groups would actually agree more to a different political affilation than another member of a different anarchist subgroup.

Of course you can find holes in what I said if you tried hard enough, again read what I have said.

anarchy will never work in complex societies.

right now i would opt for anarchy..which i would view as more of a necessary transition state/phase to more equality than some type of working governtment. Im not big on politics, i think think its all fake bullshit, which is why i dont vote. It really is funny how veryone seems to be running around worrying about this recession as well... why not just let the dead society fall?? All over the radio they are telling us we need to consume more now to help our economy, and how its all going to shit.. It makes me happy, like finally somethings changing. We will see chaos first then creation out of the ashes..

Thats the point I would like to make.. i do not believe in infinatily sustainable systems on such subjective levels. a society can only be governed in a certain way for so long until it either corrupts itself or its requirments outgrow its boundries. Has their been any civilization yet to do full justification to all humans?? I believe not. Even the buddhists in history seem dogmatic, they tried to destroy the old shamnic ways of the mongolians long ago before accepting them. Tribal/shamanic societies also place regid dogmas of male dominance and immanent war based livlihood on their peoples. And im not talking out of my ass here, i used to fantacize about perfect peacful tribal people living in eutopias free from war, but after studying anthropology i have wisened up. These societies just do not exist YET..

and crakkkback... thats not really anarchy(though i agree most would think so). I would recomend you read Emma Goldman, If you are not already familiar with her. I remember growing up as a teeneager and going to punk rock shows and seeing lots of hatred and unwarranted destrucion thinking that was anarchy..it's really not, its more madness!