I think if there was a proper system in place for enforcement and regulation, the ideal world of Ayn Rand/Andrew Ryan would be the one I feel would be best. Everyone stands on their own ability, where the great can rise as high as they can while the humble can enjoy their lives with the discoveries of the great. The problem is that we are human, and there will always be an element in our very nature that makes idealistic visions of government and the world impossible as it requires too great a sacrifice from too many people.
Government is designed to help facilitate civil social relationships and to maintain certain standards of conduct through the use of law. It's a took, basically, of a more conceptual sort. Its utility and beauty exist only in relation to how well it carries out its proper role as a tool. Government is not, however, a societal tool kit, and social engineering through use of legislation is always a very risky strategy. I say all this because you seem to revere Objectivism as if humans are not good enough for such a system. I'll say the same thing about it as I do about state communism, however: there is nothing ideal about a government that ignores human nature. Such a thing is fundamentally broken, and thus is dangerous in the same way as a misshapen hammer or an inadequately support bridge. Actually, it's worse, because usually those sorts of broken tools only fail due to incompetence in the production stage. A government that ignores human nature is more like a gun where the muzzle points back at the person holding the gun. Not to mention the needless suffering of the impoverished in a society full of people like Ayn Rand. At least the impoverished in most developed countries can count on some sort of public assistance, in addition to the people who help them now out of pity, morality, or guilt. Not only would the impoverished be without help in a Randian society, the people ignoring their pleas would feel morally superior for doing so.
There is a famous quote: "It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government...except all the others that have already been tried." That pretty much sums up my opinion. No government is perfect, but all government is neccesary. Even a dictatorship is better than anarchy. At least with a dictatorship you have a chance to get a good ruler. Anarchy is every man and woman and child for themselves.
I'm with you on Obama. Even I thought he might be a radical, progressive president. I was thinking he would be the next John F Kennedy, but then he began to pander to the Republican's requests. As ballsy as his campaign was, his presidency was more than disappointing. Edit: Is it just me, or is lowering gas pricing actually a bad thing on anybody else's agenda? I want gas to spike so high that the price actually becomes *unreasonable*. The demand for gas is surprisingly elastic in the long run, but nobody ever really notices how extremely cheap gas is in the States. What would lower gas prices solve? Is spending trillions into the military to fight a silly war overseas and risking our seas at home thanks to offshore oil drilling really worth postponing the inevitable run out of oil within the next 100 years, while choking the environment at the same time? The Young Turks say it better than I can. But god, I do hate that channel at times. >>;
Not really. Anarchist communities, provided they understand the limits of their resources, are usually marvelously stable and fair-minded. Anarchocapitalism is theoretically much more in line with this 'every person for themselves' idea.
Here's how I see it. I see world leaders slowly taking us back to the feudal days, where there were kings and queens and lords and ladies and the peasants of course. A good king or queen is can be a good thing but when absolute power is used to rule the masses, the masses suffer.
Society will never be perfect, anyways. What I was trying to say with that quote was, Democracy is VERY far from perfect, but it's probably the best it's gonna get.
Democracy is the best we will ever get. A monarchy under the right king would be better but no human is capable of being that right king. There is only one righteous King. That's all that I'll say on that.
Well, speaking strictly of mortal Kings, I'd say that there actually are a few people who would be genuinely good kings. If you look back, history is full of good and bad rulers, almost equally so. It takes an extraordinary person to be both genuinely "good" in the moral sense, and genuinely good at being the administrative head honcho of a whole country. Personally, I think that I would be great at being a good person. I would probably just ruin the country because I would have no idea of how to be a good King. Y'know?
THIS is democracy, a bunch of liers deciding about YOUR life. THEY decide what you can do or not do. Yes of course, you have the freedom to vote but dosnt matter who are you voting for, they all shaking hands with companys, opposite politicans and criminals. [youtube]jtJauIV2ff4[/youtube] In this video some German Politicans voted for a new §. And only 4%... 4%!!!!!!!!!! Have been there to vote for it. Of possible 600 politicans only 25 showed up!!!!!!!!!!! This is Democracy? TBH, Russia has Democracy too but everyone knows that its corrupted. But how do you know that your Democracy isnt corrupted aswell? I'm pretty sure it is but you cant or dont want to see it. Maybe you CANT see it because you are to bussy with your iPhone or Playstation 3. But dont feel blamed by me. I'm just a regular Pony, having a regular job, living a regular life in a regular family. I dont have ever investigate anything in political way at all. And sry for my bad english too. And dont feel attacked in anyway, just wanted to post a great speech... like politicals do...
Yeah politicians suck and many don't take the job as servants of the people seriously. Many of ours in Washington don't show up for votes or just vote "present" rather than taking a stand either way. Cowards. As far as kings go. I think I know what you mean there. Richard the Lionheart was a great king. He rode into battle with his men, never asking anything of anyone he wouldn't do himself. But as a mortal he too was fallible. That was my only point really.
Honestly, I really am not surprised in the least. That's politics for you. And really, the cynical side of me would like to inform you that Politics is ALWAYS corrupt. Honest politicians are difficult to come by. And when you do, they get out political-ed by the dishonest ones. It's really a trade that you can't survive in unless you're dishonest and corrupt. That said, I also think that a Corrupt Democracy is better than a Psychotic Dictatorship. Even the Senate was better than Nero, y'know?
Like Legion said, even if you do go into politics with a good heart, you'll end up as dishonest and corrupt as the rest of them. In an environment like that, good ideas are completely ignored. They focus on being one step ahead of the opposition, rather than actually thinking of solutions. I can't wait for the day when robots/cats take over. Then we won't have to worry about who's running the country.
I always think "There's some kid starving in Africa. Deal with it." It seems to work well for me. Anyway, on-topic now, as long as humans can get corrupted, I don't see our governments getting any better.
I want some politicians that know what they're talking about. My grandma even says that congress dislikes Obama so much if he tried to pass an extremely conservative law, they would stonewall it. Hmmmm. Health care reform. Start arguing.
