First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Post Reply What's the best system of government?
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 10/25/14 , edited 10/25/14

severticas wrote:


morechunch wrote:


Any donation of money to a political campaign should be recorded and made public. It's not like a charity, this money is being used to help a candidate gain a seat of broad power. One should not have the ability to contribute to this process without accepting accountability.

The idea of transparency in government, which must be a good idea nobody can win a campaign on the platform of secrecy, has to be regulated by a non-partisan agency that keeps its records publicly available. For this, I like the idea of a judicial system like the supreme court, but larger and more specified for oversight, where the people who have the seats of power have equal power and a job that does not fit into the executive or legislative branches, and their decisions are not secret.

The fewer people this entire system has to represent, the easier it is to perform it with the interest of all the people it represents.


hmm...you don't remove barriers by introducing more.


I take that as you think my ideas are introducing barriers. I'm confused which part of this you mean, though. Is it when you make somebody accountable for their contributions? Is it creating any oversight organization at all?

The transparency idea I put forward is an ideal, yes, but I think it's important to have somebody other than the watchers watching the watchers. Do you see what I'm saying? The executive and legislative branches cannot regulate themselves or each other, that is giving them too much power to make decisions and act without public knowledge or consent. So I'm saying there should be a government system in place that keeps public records of what is going on in politics. I agree if you mean this is a rosy ideal that we won't see, but I don't believe it is creating any sort of barrier.

If you mean the public documenting of campaign contributions, yes, I definitely believe there should be a barrier between wealth and political power. I don't think the idea sets up a barrier itself, but makes it possible to see when the line is being crossed. Policy has shifted since the beginning of the nation to keep barriers between trade secrets and public knowledge. Big trade secret here, money can influence policy so your trade can make more money. But people don't like that, so make sure they don't know it's going on.

Or maybe barriers is in reference to the final statement, which was intended as a thinking point; it's easier to represent a few people than it is to represent a lot of people. The ideal situation is self-representation, but on a literal level that's anarchy. So without removing the government, self-representation is easier in a true democracy when you have more knowledge of what the government is doing and your power to get policies in place relies on your vote rather than your dollar value.

But instead, since it's easier to represent a few people, politicians aren't picking the voters first. The voters are fickle and have no promises to offer. Businesses, accumulations of money, can buy the ads that get the support, can fund the campaigns that need signs and buttons and bumper stickers and shirts and volunteers. The money has to come from somewhere.

Would it be inhibiting at all to know where the money is coming from? But who is going to keep track of this? And how do we pay those people to keep track of this with no other interest if we don't employ them through our tax dollars? I see this as removing a barrier rather than making a new one. Like making an FBI or CIA or IRS except instead of watching us they watch the three branches of government, and the citizens can watch them do this at any time.
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 10/25/14

BlueOni wrote:

Proponents of dictatorship have a historical record to look back to and call upon to support their cause. They might point to the relative economic and cultural prosperity of Athens under the tyranny of Peisistratos, or the successful modernization and industrialization of the USSR under the Stalinists' oversight, or the improvement of standards of living in Argentina under the Peronists, or even the relative prosperity experienced by some country under whoever their favorite absolute monarch is. Indeed, there is a plentiful buffet of accomplished dictatorships to choose from.

Of course, as the proponents of dictatorship take from this buffet they (like any other buffet goer) leave behind the wilted leaves of lettuce, the softened tomatoes, and the off-smelling meats. They will quietly avoid the fact that Peisistratos was driven from the city of Athens on two separate occasions, the purging, slavery, forced expatriation, and genocide (both cultural and physical) in Stalin's USSR, the brutal street violence and thuggery of the Peronists, or the fact that successors of influential monarchs and tyrants, however well-groomed and thoroughly taught, were just as likely to possess a talent for fornication and revelry which by comparison diminished their talent for governance to an imperceptible speck. Awful tasting stuff indeed.

The difference between the buffet of liberal democracies and the buffet of dictatorships, dear friends, is that the buffet of dictators has a far greater amount of wilted lettuce, softened tomatoes, and off-smelling meats than tempting morsels by comparison. Dictatorship is plagued with instability, with violence, with corruption, and all to a greater historical extent than liberal democracy. Dictatorship may from time to time produce fruit (and how loudly its proponents will announce that it has done so), but from a bird's eye view the pattern becomes plain: dictatorships are inferior to liberal democracies in that they produce fruit less consistently, and more generally through repugnant means.


Second.
Posted 10/25/14

morechunch wrote:


severticas wrote:


morechunch wrote:


Any donation of money to a political campaign should be recorded and made public. It's not like a charity, this money is being used to help a candidate gain a seat of broad power. One should not have the ability to contribute to this process without accepting accountability.

The idea of transparency in government, which must be a good idea nobody can win a campaign on the platform of secrecy, has to be regulated by a non-partisan agency that keeps its records publicly available. For this, I like the idea of a judicial system like the supreme court, but larger and more specified for oversight, where the people who have the seats of power have equal power and a job that does not fit into the executive or legislative branches, and their decisions are not secret.

The fewer people this entire system has to represent, the easier it is to perform it with the interest of all the people it represents.


hmm...you don't remove barriers by introducing more.


I take that as you think my ideas are introducing barriers. I'm confused which part of this you mean, though. Is it when you make somebody accountable for their contributions? Is it creating any oversight organization at all?

The transparency idea I put forward is an ideal, yes, but I think it's important to have somebody other than the watchers watching the watchers. Do you see what I'm saying? The executive and legislative branches cannot regulate themselves or each other, that is giving them too much power to make decisions and act without public knowledge or consent. So I'm saying there should be a government system in place that keeps public records of what is going on in politics. I agree if you mean this is a rosy ideal that we won't see, but I don't believe it is creating any sort of barrier.

If you mean the public documenting of campaign contributions, yes, I definitely believe there should be a barrier between wealth and political power. I don't think the idea sets up a barrier itself, but makes it possible to see when the line is being crossed. Policy has shifted since the beginning of the nation to keep barriers between trade secrets and public knowledge. Big trade secret here, money can influence policy so your trade can make more money. But people don't like that, so make sure they don't know it's going on.

Or maybe barriers is in reference to the final statement, which was intended as a thinking point; it's easier to represent a few people than it is to represent a lot of people. The ideal situation is self-representation, but on a literal level that's anarchy. So without removing the government, self-representation is easier in a true democracy when you have more knowledge of what the government is doing and your power to get policies in place relies on your vote rather than your dollar value.

But instead, since it's easier to represent a few people, politicians aren't picking the voters first. The voters are fickle and have no promises to offer. Businesses, accumulations of money, can buy the ads that get the support, can fund the campaigns that need signs and buttons and bumper stickers and shirts and volunteers. The money has to come from somewhere.

Would it be inhibiting at all to know where the money is coming from? But who is going to keep track of this? And how do we pay those people to keep track of this with no other interest if we don't employ them through our tax dollars? I see this as removing a barrier rather than making a new one. Like making an FBI or CIA or IRS except instead of watching us they watch the three branches of government, and the citizens can watch them do this at any time.


which part? i didn't acknowledge a division, it was all part of the same thing. and now you're giving me a backstory i believe... but okay, you see it as removing barriers which is fine by me lol.
35059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 10/25/14 , edited 10/25/14

masked185 wrote:

Moderate Socialism would be a great idea...if it actually worked. Unfortunately in the world we live in people don't share that well. I think the only really viable one is some version of Democracy.


But ah, there are varieties of socialism which call for gradual democratic reforms of economic policy such that a socialist economy is established peacefully and in the context of a representative democracy. Indeed, democratic socialists and social democrats insist that a representative democracy is the only political system under which a socialist economic system can be legitimately established and maintained in the long-term.

The effects of such peoples' labors can be seen in the social and economic policies of most liberal democracies, but more particularly in the Nordic states.
Posted 10/25/14 , edited 10/25/14
a system where i don't have to get taxed so much please :). don't care about the who's and the means. and please keep the secrecy, not at my expense lol
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 10/25/14 , edited 10/25/14

Sir_jamesalot wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:



Would you mind elaborating on this? I'm curious as to why you think that.


Anarchy is when there are no rules so there is total equality without status and it allows everyone to be in charge of their own domain.
Anarchy has been successful in the wild so it should be successful with humans, too.


But without government, there is no police force or any general legal system to uphold the law. So there wouldn't really be anything standing in the way for people to take advantage of others.
Not to mention that there would be no infrastructure to speak of.
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 10/25/14

BlueOni wrote:


The effects of such peoples' labors can be seen in the social and economic policies of most liberal democracies, but more particularly in the Nordic states.


I agree, the Nordic states get it right a lot of the time.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated-like-people
9380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / San Antonio
Offline
Posted 10/25/14

Syndicaidramon wrote:


Sir_jamesalot wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:



Would you mind elaborating on this? I'm curious as to why you think that.


Anarchy is when there are no rules so there is total equality without status and it allows everyone to be in charge of their own domain.
Anarchy has been successful in the wild so it should be successful with humans, too.


But without government, there is no police force or any general legal system to uphold the law. So there wouldn't really be anything standing in the way for people to take advantage of others.
Not to mention that there would be no infrastructure to speak of.


The problem with anarchy is that it eventually leads to government. The current state of affairs is the product of thousands of years of civilization. Reverting to an anarchy would really just be turning back the clock some, and I don't think anything better would result, or necessarily worse would result.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 10/25/14

narfington wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


Sir_jamesalot wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:



Would you mind elaborating on this? I'm curious as to why you think that.


Anarchy is when there are no rules so there is total equality without status and it allows everyone to be in charge of their own domain.
Anarchy has been successful in the wild so it should be successful with humans, too.


But without government, there is no police force or any general legal system to uphold the law. So there wouldn't really be anything standing in the way for people to take advantage of others.
Not to mention that there would be no infrastructure to speak of.


The problem with anarchy is that it eventually leads to government. The current state of affairs is the product of thousands of years of civilization. Reverting to an anarchy would really just be turning back the clock some, and I don't think anything better would result, or necessarily worse would result.


Indeed.

30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 10/26/14

Syndicaidramon wrote:


Sir_jamesalot wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:



Would you mind elaborating on this? I'm curious as to why you think that.


Anarchy is when there are no rules so there is total equality without status and it allows everyone to be in charge of their own domain.
Anarchy has been successful in the wild so it should be successful with humans, too.


But without government, there is no police force or any general legal system to uphold the law. So there wouldn't really be anything standing in the way for people to take advantage of others.
Not to mention that there would be no infrastructure to speak of.


There would be no law to uphold.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 10/26/14

Sir_jamesalot wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


Sir_jamesalot wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:



Would you mind elaborating on this? I'm curious as to why you think that.


Anarchy is when there are no rules so there is total equality without status and it allows everyone to be in charge of their own domain.
Anarchy has been successful in the wild so it should be successful with humans, too.


But without government, there is no police force or any general legal system to uphold the law. So there wouldn't really be anything standing in the way for people to take advantage of others.
Not to mention that there would be no infrastructure to speak of.


There would be no law to uphold.

So what's going to prevent people from murdering, raping and stealing from each other?
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 10/26/14 , edited 10/26/14

Syndicaidramon wrote:

So what's going to prevent people from murdering, raping and stealing from each other?


Rational thinking.
Laws will only punish you after you break them, so having laws don't stop the rapists and murderers that exist today.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 10/26/14

Sir_jamesalot wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:

So what's going to prevent people from murdering, raping and stealing from each other?


Rational thinking.
Laws will only punish you after you break them, so having laws don't stop the rapists and murderers that exist today.


It stops many POTENTIAL thefts and murders. Probably rapes too.
And you say "rational thinking"... How? In what way exactly?
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 10/26/14

Syndicaidramon wrote:


Sir_jamesalot wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:

So what's going to prevent people from murdering, raping and stealing from each other?


Rational thinking.
Laws will only punish you after you break them, so having laws don't stop the rapists and murderers that exist today.


It stops many POTENTIAL thefts and murders. Probably rapes too.
And you say "rational thinking"... How? In what way exactly?


Most people don't want to rape and murder each other so they are able to exercise self control.
Having no rules doesn't mean people will be the worst that they can get away with.
35059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 10/26/14 , edited 10/26/14
It's worthwhile to note that anarchists aren't generally advocating for lawlessness, but rather for conditions such that all associations are freely and voluntarily established/maintained. Their aim isn't to destroy law and order, it's to destroy coercion. Anarchist capitalists envision a society where private insurance companies, arbitration firms, security firms, lenders, and so on assume every function presently fulfilled by public sector actors and compete with one another in an entirely unregulated market operating according to capitalist principles. Contracts which would be freely entered by individuals and interpreted/enforced by arbitration firms would be the system of law in anarchist capitalism. Leftist anarchists, meanwhile, envision a society in which economic activity is effectively composed of free exchanges between communities whose production is managed by workers' councils (in which all laborers would be considered coequal and all people would be free to speak) and which provide for each others' mutual defense and stability.

With that all said, statelessness has historically been associated with inconsistent, low-quality provision of essential services (such as infrastructural maintenance and delivery of utilities) and with crime syndicates, warlords, and so on setting up shop and making a right mess of things. So while anarchists do not pursue lawless chaos in principle, it seems to generally be what they ultimately get in practice. And even when that isn't what anarchists get, even when they establish functional or semi-functional societies, anarchy has a pretty bad track record for maintaining its borders against foreign aggressors (especially those with state apparatuses). There is a reason that social systems with states have blanketed the globe: they tend to be very, very good at gathering and coordinating resources for very specific projects (like fighting wars or establishing/maintaining infrastructure), far better than their stateless counterparts.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.