I was wondering, what style of government and economics do you favor most? For example, do you like America's laissez faire capitalism, but say another country's Parliamentary system? Or hell, even your own system you have developed! Discuss your thoughts and be expected to answer questions about why you think that and give solid reasons why, not just "it makes sense man!" Well, for me, I've developed my own system. Government: a strong, central, directly Democratically elected leader that has the ability to make quick, meaningful decisions without much bureaucracy, while the strong leader is checked by a small council of elected officials, who choose a Supreme Court, which checks the head leader and the council. The head leader rules for 10 years before running for one more term or stepping aside, and should he run again, he'ld need to be confirmed by the Council. And finally, there's a graduated tax that doesn't tax the bottom 10% of society, and ends with taxing the top 1% earners 40% Economics: Businesses cannot control more than 15% of the industry they are in, and they can only be in one industry. Other than that, it's mainly hands off besides protecting workers and consumers, and also if a business fails, the government can choose to take over it until it gets back on its feet, bail it out, or let it die. Sadly, I cannot provide real world examples behind how well this system would work...
Libertarian is my preference. One that is about 'minimize government, maximum freedom'. Basically get rid of big government, lower taxes, regulate government aid to were only people who NEED it, gets it, not lazy people who only have babies for a paycheck and buy iphones with it instead of taking care of them. Get rid of Obamacare (sorry to anypony that offends), stay out of foreign issues, practice freedom of speech, and rid censorship, keep the second amendment (right to bear arms) and get rid of pointless gun laws, allow same-sex marriage (regardless if agree with it or not) and allow women, blacks, LGBT, and other American minorities equal rights that they are treated fair as straight, white men, but do not give any minority an advantage either, pure equality or all citizens. Do not allow illegal aliens in the country and rid any right they have until they are legally a citizen, put jobs in the private sector and lower government jobs, legalize marijuana but tax it regardless if you like weed or not (I don't smoke pot at all, and don't plan to, but I support legalizing it.) If abortion is allowed, make the individual pay for it (not one taxpayer should pay a penny to abortion, I myself is against abortion). Get rid of these drones and NSA's watch over us, and raise awareness of third parties for WE THE PEOPLE can have alternatives to the 2 parties which both are a piece of crap. [video=youtube;RhmFXRe5Z68]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhmFXRe5Z68[/video] This is the closest actual political view to me.
PRetty much the main sticking point in that for me is the minimal govn't regulation. Just seems to throw open the door to a repeat of what happened in the Gilded Age right on up to the Great depression(which was pretty much caused by laissez-faire economics). The main thing is finding the happy medium, enough regulation to where it protects the people from being mistreated and under-payed and protect the public health and such by businesses but not enough to stifle the free market, because history has proven that a free market economy tends to do better than those heavily regulated or otherwise govn't controlled
I favor anarchy. With nobody in charge, people are left to fend for themselves. This ensures that only the strongest survive, as is the law of nature.
Im sort of a Libertarian much like Bry. I honestly feel that one term being 10 years is a bit too much. Personally my preferable parliamentary system would be like the UK's with there being a 5 year term and a person is allowed to become a head of a party at the age of 35. They then get to spend up to 4 tries if they fail gaining power. If they do get power they can campaign for 2 more terms before stepping down.
I go back and forth. I see the advantages of taking politicians out of power to limit their negative effects of the governing body and the economy, but at the same time I don't see how anyone really can expect the big changes they ask for to actually be done by a single person in the time frame of four, or even eight years, especially with the certain amount of political obstructionism that goes on in the United States nowadays. I'm known by my acquaintances to have some very pro-Democratic interpretations of the writings of Thomas Hobbes (see: "Leviathan") and Karl Marx (his works that he wrote when he was younger, in particular "On The Jewish Question"). That might sound unusual, considering Hobbes criticized Democracy as being inefficient and proposed that a Monarchy was preferable, and while I disagree with that sentiment I find his diagnoses of the two systems enlightening; ditto for Marx, though "On The Jewish Question" is given more to contemplating social aspects government. I also straddle a middle-line between preferring capitalism and socialism. Both have some value that cannot be ignored, but they also have certain detriments. I am not an "all-or-nothing" ideologist.
Return to the west, Frontier Justice! so basically anarchy, Governments of any type are corrupt. boo governments, yea people!
And we've seen how well it's worked this far....Communism may be a great idea on paper, but simply doesn't work IRL because of human nature
I wrote an essay on one of Karl Marx's writings recently. I don't completely disagree with you, but I do have a response to your point. There are many things on which Karl Marx and I do not agree; however, his points are often neglected in favor of a generalized summation of what the common perception of Communism is. Here's an excerpt: The quote that I refer to regarding Marx's rebuttal to the common criticism of Communism is: And his solution to the problems that plague Communism is: Therefore, I believe the ultimate failing of Communism is not due to the fact that it neglects human nature, but rather that its structure cannot be achieved through action over a short period of time, only slow passive growth over many years.
A dictatorship would be ideal in my eyes if the ruler were not corrupted by power, generous, and thinks of the country first rather than himself. But since this is highly improbably, a direct democracy sounds nice Something similar to what the Romans put to use, accept with women in the mix. In rebuttal to the preference of anarchy, it would not last very long. Eventually some one would rise up and put in place an absolute monarchy of some sort by having advantages in the areas of technology/resources/education. Or everybody would kill each other and eventually themselves. Have any of you read Divergent and/or the sequels? What kind of government and social system is that?
One of the biggest reason's that Communism had failed is because of the basic human nature and deadly sin of greed. Communism had little or if any reward for hard work or innovation and a lack of punishment for poor or inefficient work. It lacked incentives and this lack of incentives was the reason why Eastern European's poor performance during the Soviet Union's era of dominance. Why would you bother working hard if your reward was the same as doing the bare minimal? Another reason was that it had no ability to innovate. All of Eastern Europe failed to develop new technologies or adopt a more efficient process, just look how the 1980's turned out for Soviet's. The Western world prospered and made advancements, once of these being in IT, while the Communist Bloc had been exhausting with the same technology it had been using for decades. Not saying there were just that no innovations under Communism, just that there were very few of them and they were mainly concentrated in the field of military and space. "Of all the main inventions and technological advances of the late 20th century, almost none of them were made in communist countries and almost all were made in the USA." - Robert Nielsen Communism, while absolutely brilliant on paper, failed to adapt. It couldn’t create new and more efficient methods of production and as a result it stagnated. It never advanced from heavy steel mills even after they ceased to be in a competitive market. By the 80s the economic system was bankrupt of fresh ideas, with the Soviet Union failing to keep by sticking to old methods. With an inability to reward workers to work hard and efficiently ,Communism did not succeed as an economic system in total and basically dug it's own grave once it was brought down in 1991.
Good points. And I would agree that this is what has caused nearly every communist nation in the past to fall -- too fast of a transition. The issue I believe is that too much leverage is being placed on the individual too quickly. When a system places the burden of "taking up the mantle" of everyone else I believe it creates a large sense of unwanted obligation, or even becoming estranged. Historically this lack of proper transitioning has lead to people yelling and pleading with their government to give what they think they are missing when in actuality needs to be developed and understood from within each individual's own self (which as I'm interpreting those quotes you noted, is what Marx is getting at). A sort of unity needs to form before any real success can be achieved. When people aren't allowed to acclimate, the unfortunate consequence usually is the government crudely or harmfully attempting to forcing it, which we certainly know will cause those foreboding issues -- stagnation, economic and political depravity, etc. However I personally am still of the belief that people cannot make this transition easily or smoothly enough where it comes to the point that the system will function in the long term or show it's boons.
I love the parliament system up here in Canada but I do want there to be an elected senate. I believe that the way to go is conservatism. People should earn their own wealth and get rewarded for it. If you are in a bit of a sticky wicket the government will be there to help out, but only for a certain period of time depending on the scenario. I am sick and tired of people just sitting at home doing nothing all day but play video games and watch TV while they are on welfare!
On that last part, here in 'Murica, it is law that you need to get a job pretty quickly after getting on welfare....(if I recall correctly)
Thank you, and I think we would agree on this as well: forced Communism within a Totalitarian system is barely communism at all. Is greed a sin? I'm not sure I believe in "sin." Anyway, I agree that there is a certain lack of monetary incentive for doing work in a Communist system, though to say that there is no incentive at all seems to be a very strictly Capitalist comment, as if money was the only representation of value of any kind in all the world. However, your point is correct. I also agree that the application of Communism in all past and modern societies has less innovation than is preferable, though I believe our Capitalist society also suffers from that, to a lesser degree and for different reasons. Due to the subjective goals of the world market, Communism in the Soviet Union was, as you correctly stated, unable to compete with the Capitalist systems that have survived it. On all those points we agree, yet I do not believe that this turn of events was inevitable.
