Part of what I do here at university (aside from sleep and procrastinate on essays) involves forumlating an ideal political system. While many others in my group have taken the rather boring route of some form of representative democracies, and some with the more innovative proto-fascist approaches, I've long been an advocate of a little something called "Technocratic Demarchy". Most of the response I got from the others (who seem in my group to be mostly chemists who are compelled to take at least one humanities module) was of the "nod and smile" variety, nobody wanting to point out anything to improve. Frankly, I think they were bewildered by the detail I went into that the others had not.
Anyhow, I thought since is the non-adventure bit, I might as well posit it and see how popular it is. After all, few years time, maybe I'll stage a coup somewhere and get to experiment with it. Views from politicians and non-politicians alike welcome!
Political System Proposal - Technocratic Demarchy
Three Branches
1) The Technocracy - Rule by Experts
- Executive/Bureaucratic fusion
- Carries out day-to-day runnng of the country
- operates like a business, with objective peak goals (education shoul have large number of literate children, hospitals should maximise quality of care)
- experts administrating these fields; experienced hospital directors hired by technocracy to run health service, schoolteachers to run education, etc
- certain sectors (e.g. public transport, ministry of housing) run as businesses to minimise requirement of tax drain
- Technocracy does not make laws, rather enacts laws passed by Demarchy, and otherwise ensures optimal functioning of apparatus of state.
- Has power to send proposed laws back to the Demarchy for modification, e.g. if they're unworkable incurrent form (maximum 3 returns)
- Appoints 50% of the Constitutional Council
2) The Demarchy - Rule by the People
- Legislative body
- No direct power, but proposes laws which Technocracy would enact.
- Not directly elected; 2,500 randomly chosen every year from all citizens of nation, to prevent buildup of interests and entrenched political movements, provide more representative sample
- To avoid choosing politically apathetic, "citizenship" is an opt-in affair. You have to agree to it specifically (oath etc) in order to be eligible to be chosen for the Demarchy
- Debating chamber, also has power to dissolve the senior committees of Technocracy in case of dangerously entrenched opinion
- cannot be a member of both Technocracy and Demarchy
- Mandatory minimum attendance of Demarchic sessions
- Has power to modify constitution with 66% agreement within the Demarchy
- Appoints 50% of the constitutional Council
3) The Constitutional Council - Protecting the People from themselves
- Ensures that actions carried out by the Technocracy, and laws enacted by the Demarchy are within the Constitution
- Half of the Councillors chosen by each "house".
- Power to strike down laws deemed unconstitutional with Majority of Council's vote, and suspend activities of the Technocracy likewise.
Other features of the system:
Citizens -
- Opt-in process, have to consciously choose to be "full" citizen, to avoid apathetics being forced into politics
- Perhaps some form of test to determine suitability for citizenship, such as national service, or completion of citizenship examination
- If not selected for the Demarchy, they can still vote on issues, once each, at their local government office. The results of these votes is provided to the Demarchy to enable them to make better informed decisions based on the will of the populace
Constitution -
- Codified document enshrining rights of all people of the nation
- Basic rights, e.g. freedom of speech, association, thought, religion, etc
- Newer rights - freedom of information; citizens privy to information on *all* activities of government
- freedom of media; not just freedom of the press, but a guarantee of net neutrality, and the provision of the national internet as an international haven.
- right to the bare minimum; the government will provide, at minimum, a place to live, an education, security, health services, sanitation, and the most Godawful (but still technically sufficient) food necessary for keeping citizens alive. Quality of these bare-minimum services to be kept low, to encourage upward development.
National Security Forces -
- akin to an army, but not with intention of projected force
- while trained in combat, this will be defensive in intent, or in order to maintain social stability
- main purpose as emergency response services, to provide firefighting/disaster response support both within the nation, and to others requesting assistance.
- serves as everything from auxiliary firefighting to auxiliary teaching if needed.
- combat arm will be as mechanised as possible (drones, missiles and automated sentry guns)
- complsory national service; since not martial in nature, conscientious objection is not applicable. Position within ambulance corps/firefighters instead.
- can skip national service if one succeeds in higher education (at least Bachelors degree).
I have the idea of making a game of a commputist system. :) It' s like communist, but effective because the decissions are taken by a computer, not the flawable men. :D
Of course, live in that society is boring and sooner or later there will be a revolution! ;D
EDIT: Damn Babar, I was quite sure my idea was quite original :(
well... Remembering some Asimov' s stories (I remember a short one when the vote of ONE mas was the one deciding the president of the USA, because a computer decided he was the most representative) it' s not a big surprise.
How would you have a debate of 2500 people?
Would the Demarchy members have their regular jobs held open for them for a year?
Hahah...when I read 'technocracy', I also thought of a 'computist' system... I think I actually read something like that in a Isaac Asimov novel once: a computer system that was programmed by dozens of different programmers that ran the country. The end result was interesting, but I wouldn't want to spoil the story.
There's no end to amount of state policing your idea would need.
To have it flawlessly working, it would require hordes of officials/policing agencies checking backgrounds of wannabe-leader school directors, public service tax rates (so monopolist businessmen would not rip off nation). And of course all this nazi system about citizenship and all this bureaucracy/hair tearing discussions enacting laws would need...
We had such a system. Not same, but close. Communist socialism. It worked on fear... of dark torture cells in local KGB house and a neighbor, who would give you up to nearest party member if you had some criticism talk about government while sipping beer together.
Defensive military? Defensive armies get bombed usually, at least, in modern world... I can imagine building tall drones sitting in a city while artillery reduces it to dust. Sorry, our programmers didn't include routines for offense...
Yeah, I live in democratic republic. Our parliament IS your demarchy. All they do is pass laws to goverment. A soap factory owner proposes low import taxes on soap, a russian spy suggests lower budget on defense, etc etc.
It's a damn corrupted mess where "hand washes a hand". So soap tax laws actually go through, especially when deciding minister gets his share of soap profit as "an anonymous support to his party campaign" or simply something to overseas bank account for retirement days. "No direct power" doesn't mean "no remote power". I don't see how your system could escape corruption here.
Quote3) The Constitutional Council
Is your everday CIA, NSA, KGB, FSB... but without less power? One bad sheep here and whole system becomes corrupt.
While system might be nice on paper, people are not...
It's progressive though. Somewhat utopic.
....
Well, my own view is that people are generally stupid, corrupt and easily influenced.
This needs a powerful leader with as little of sub-leaders and bureaucracy as possible.
Absolute monarchy seemed to be most efficient. Not sure how it would work in modern world, though.
The Capitalism/Democracy combo works less badly than every other form of government because it relies on the selfishness of people. Most other systems rely on the selfLESSness of some number of people, which never works.
I don't think so. "The other systems" do not work because "there are not enough selflessnness people".
The other systems do not work because communism is an absurd theory.
It was not true that the doctrine was beautiful and its execution failed. The doctrine was based on a serious error in an intellectual and moral breakdown that will inevitably lead to disaster and terror.
Communist governments, without exception, built some very poor and brutal societies which invariably desperate people trying to flee. All experiments communists failed, regardless of the substrate on which they were trying to build. The system failed the Germans, Slavs, Latin Americans (Cuba and Nicaragua), Asians, black Africans. It' s not about people.
It does not work basically because saying "everybody is equal" is stupid.
I can only see two major problems:
1) Define what you mean by experts, I'm afraid you may be making the grave mistake of mixing up intelligence with wisdom (i.e., just because someone may have an infinite knowledge of politics, doesn't mean they know anything about running a country).
2) Also, I can see someone getting into the constitutional council and causing all kinds of havoc (it has too much power in one place). I would suggest dividing it into the 3 groups. One carries out technocracy laws, one checks that the laws are within constitutional reasoning and another group (consisting of the two together) can opt to vote to overthrow (or, as you said, strike down) unconstitutional rules, however, should the vote succeed. They must also get a 60% agreement vote from the demarchy, and if that fails, they can try to get a 70% vote from the technocracy itself.
This more red tape is simply to eliminate someone getting into the council and making a sudden Hitler-esque (that is, extremely fast) rise to power and to remove the ability for a conspiracy group to secretly take over the constitutional council and force their views. (Almost entirely due to the third point).
Other than that, I still partly get the feeling it is somewhat utopic (you don't really have any contingency plans should something go wrong and you assume it will work out, which won't occur unless you have something akin to Deus Ex's Helios (AI construct)).
Well, plenty of things to answer. I shall attempt to clairfy and justify my viewpoint!
Quote from: SSH on Fri 14/11/2008 18:38:03
How would you have a debate of 2500 people?
Would the Demarchy members have their regular jobs held open for them for a year?
My original concept was to have the demarchy consisting of the entire nation (opt in) capable of voting via local centres, or the internet. I lowered it to 2500 as a compromise between it being too large to be unmanageable, and small enough to at least engage in a large enough cross-section for debate to be representative. Ideally, like Dudeman Thingface says, something like Helios would be brilliant for total consent of the people on any law-based matter.
Quote from: Dudeman Thingface on Fri 14/11/2008 20:40:04
I can only see two major problems:
1) Define what you mean by experts, I'm afraid you may be making the grave mistake of mixing up intelligence with wisdom (i.e., just because someone may have an infinite knowledge of politics, doesn't mean they know anything about running a country).
2) Also, I can see someone getting into the constitutional council and causing all kinds of havoc (it has too much power in one place). I would suggest dividing it into the 3 groups. One carries out technocracy laws, one checks that the laws are within constitutional reasoning and another group (consisting of the two together) can opt to vote to overthrow (or, as you said, strike down) unconstitutional rules, however, should the vote succeed. They must also get a 60% agreement vote from the demarchy, and if that fails, they can try to get a 70% vote from the technocracy itself.
This more red tape is simply to eliminate someone getting into the council and making a sudden Hitler-esque (that is, extremely fast) rise to power and to remove the ability for a conspiracy group to secretly take over the constitutional council and force their views. (Almost entirely due to the third point).
Other than that, I still partly get the feeling it is somewhat utopic (you don't really have any contingency plans should something go wrong and you assume it will work out, which won't occur unless you have something akin to Deus Ex's Helios (AI construct)).
1) For experts, I'm thinking of a similar model to civil services (I'm probably just a teensy weensy bit biased in favour of their competence, since quite literally everyone in my family works for them!), in that experts are appointed based on their credible track record of success. I don't intend to place academics with little practical skill in charge (such a thing was dreadful for the USSR), but those who have proven their capability in other areas. For example, successful hospital administrators running the department of health, and for certain state-run operations (television, utlities, etc) recruit from the private sector, and run modelled as a business with profit-driven tactics determining their success.
2) That sounds like an interesting division of the Constitutional Council - the function I had intended it for was something akin to the Supreme Court of the USA. Their power to influence/make policy is limited to knowing individuals within the demarchy, and they themselves serve as a national safeguard against abuse of power by either the technocracy or the demarchy.
Quote from: InCreator on Fri 14/11/2008 18:58:04
There's no end to amount of state policing your idea would need.
To have it flawlessly working, it would require hordes of officials/policing agencies checking backgrounds of wannabe-leader school directors, public service tax rates (so monopolist businessmen would not rip off nation). And of course all this nazi system about citizenship and all this bureaucracy/hair tearing discussions enacting laws would need...
We had such a system. Not same, but close. Communist socialism. It worked on fear... of dark torture cells in local KGB house and a neighbor, who would give you up to nearest party member if you had some criticism talk about government while sipping beer together.
Defensive military? Defensive armies get bombed usually, at least, in modern world... I can imagine building tall drones sitting in a city while artillery reduces it to dust. Sorry, our programmers didn't include routines for offense...
Yeah, I live in democratic republic. Our parliament IS your demarchy. All they do is pass laws to goverment. A soap factory owner proposes low import taxes on soap, a russian spy suggests lower budget on defense, etc etc.
It's a damn corrupted mess where "hand washes a hand". So soap tax laws actually go through, especially when deciding minister gets his share of soap profit as "an anonymous support to his party campaign" or simply something to overseas bank account for retirement days. "No direct power" doesn't mean "no remote power". I don't see how your system could escape corruption here.
Quote3) The Constitutional Council
Is your everday CIA, NSA, KGB, FSB... but without less power? One bad sheep here and whole system becomes corrupt.
While system might be nice on paper, people are not...
It's progressive though. Somewhat utopic.
....
Well, my own view is that people are generally stupid, corrupt and easily influenced.
This needs a powerful leader with as little of sub-leaders and bureaucracy as possible.
Absolute monarchy seemed to be most efficient. Not sure how it would work in modern world, though.
I'm not sure I understand why a large volume of police would be required - understandably, and necessarily, there would have to be stringent background checks on those becoming a part of the technocracy, and the demarchy also acts as a means by which members of the technocracy could lose their jobs if the demarchy (representing the will of the people) saw them as not doing their jobs properly, or abusing their positions.
The system is also intended to limit the soap tax problem. Rather than having a "pet" representative in a legislature that certain industries may have acquired by funding their campaigns, by having members of the demarchy randomly selected, it limits the possibility or being quite so persuasive. The larger number of members is also aimed to dilute the effect - especially if, as hoped for in the long term, it can be rolled out to the entire nation.
As mentioned, the constitutional council is aimed at being more of a supreme court, and a means of limiting dangerous populist measures if they violate the constitution, or curbing the actions of the technocracy if needs be.
As for a defensive armed force, the general idea behind it is to make it less of an "army", more a "fire brigade on steroids", performing the emergency response and peacekeeping function that Territorials/National Guard would perform.
I think we both have a concern about the greedy and selfish nature of career politicians and those who make use of them, but whereas your ideal solution is to apply sufficient top-down pressure to limit it, mine is aimed at a "bottom-up" approach, trapping them in the proverbial red tape net before harm can be done.
Quote from: Nacho on Fri 14/11/2008 18:30:16
I have the idea of making a game of a commputist system. :) It' s like communist, but effective because the decissions are taken by a computer, not the flawable men. :D
Of course, live in that society is boring and sooner or later there will be a revolution! ;D
You never know, the Illuminati might be controlling our governments with an evil supercomputer already...*glances suspiciously*
Phew, hopefully that's allayed some concerns.
OK, I have a few more concerns.
In terms of your response, as you said:
Quotetrapping them in the proverbial red tape net before harm can be done
I simply suggest giving the Constitutional Council more red tape, because I keep reading it and imagining them just snapping their fingers and making things happen (which can be as bad as it is good).
Also, in terms of the NSF (heh, Deus Ex) I would highly suggest segmenting their multiple disciplines, for several reasons:
1) If I was a terrorist, all I need do is cause a few fires, kill a whole bunch of people while simultaneously engaging in war against you. I guarantee that by having ONE force that does a majority of the work, you will be overwhelmed.
Although I like the idea of everyone in the NSF being trained to take on all of these roles, I highly suggest still having lower groups that are, even if only mostly, dedicated to one thing (such as emergency services, local police force etc.), and, because everyone is so multi-disciplined, move people around in times of hardship (such in the case of a huge fire threatening to devour your nation, you would transfer a whole bunch of people, because everyone in the NSF would be trained to do so, to the fire fighting to help out). Of course, this would be needed to be kept in check.
2) Your army being almost totally robotic is like playing starcraft and using only zerglings. You have a great advantage, but you also have a great weakness. Such as the zerglings being cheap and quick to manufacture, they suffer from very low hitpoints against vehicles and stronger troops. Just like your robots being strong and lacking any morale weaknesses, they are all affected by EMP.
Whilst I can understand EMP shielding for the CPU core, you will not be able to fully EMP shield the entire bot chassis from EMP damage (due to the diverse effects of EMP - the magnetic field, electric field, the photo electric effect occurring due to the previous two effects causing a release of photons), as such, a simple atomic bomb could (apart from destroying your troops) could knockout more than it could kill (subject to location, dispersion of troops etc.).
When I mention knockout, I'm not referring to the CPU core, I refer to the rest of the cables and power transmission. Lines could be shorted, switches could be tripped.
Also, a powerful (and close enough) alternating magnetic field could magnetize your robotic troops and cause them to crush their very insides (as it caves in as the now magnetised pieces of metal come together) or fly apart (as the magnetised metal repels). I could see this occurring as a plane flies over, drops a mechanical device which creates a large alternating current. Or even launched from artillery.
As such, you would need a strong military human force to supplement these disadvantages, even if they were mostly mechanics servicing the bots whilst being shot at. Furthermore, you would also need much human attention on the AI and their communication lines. Which would have to wi-fi (as their long cables attaching them to home base could be severed), and as such, unlike a human force (which doesn't NEED to constantly be talking to each other via radio transmission) the robots would HAVE to. So the enemy could fire an insane amount of radio waves at the bots which would disrupt information.
- and I haven't even got into hacking the transmissions.
I think I should stop now, but you should consider this in terms of your National Security Forces.
Your "technocracy" sounds pretty much identical to modern day government bureaucracy to me. The big problem to me, however, is that there doesn't appear to be any sort of accountability for the "demarchy" - what's to stop them from giving themselves gigantic pay raises and shuffling off responsibilities onto the technocracy?
;) Increator makes a truly profound statement when he says ...
Quote
While system might be nice on paper, people are not.
Communism, socialism, and other failed isms, are fatally flawed because for them to succeed it is necessary for the human participants to act against their nature. People will always act in their own best interest; always been true, always will be true. Put them in a situation that requires them to do otherwise and they will find ways to game the system. Almost all loser isms have one trait in common in that they require everyone's participations claiming that if everyone doesn't participate then they ism won't work. This is an admission that if people had a choice they would by and large choose not to participate and that the ism will under-perform. If only a small number of people opted out and over time they were not doing as well as the people who opted in then it wouldn't be necessary to require everyone's participation, now would it? Everybody would want to opt in because they would be demonstrably better off.
All governments are flawed. Power begets power, institutions and bureaucracies have a life of their own and will do anything and everything to survive and grow. That's why Thomas Jefferson said that "The government that governs least governs best" and suggested that a little revolution from time to time would be a good thing. Name one, just one, political group that has disbanded when they achieved their initial goals. It's never ever happened. There are no doubt examples of groups that have atrophied and subsequently vanished but none that stood up and said "Hey, we've accomplished what we set out to do so we are disbanding our group and going back home to play with the kids and the dog."
I do like the idea of "opting in", term limits, and choosing politicians at random. The problem with career politicians is that by necessity, they make too many promises and commitments, owe too many favors, and are continually tempted to trade favors for favors (sometimes illegally). Term limits would help this situation because legislators would come in virgin and have to leave before they could be corrupted very much.
I would make it so that whoever wanted to be in politics would be automatically disqualified from doing so. Then I would select political candidates randomly from everyone that was left. Then the general population could vote for the candidate of their choice. Sort of like jury selection a la Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy.
...which exactly is why I would see powerful dictator/monarch as best option.
Both USA and Russia actually somewhat reaches that kind of system. While people/government/senate/whoever have their say and can blabber and protest till hell freezes over, ye olde' Bush / Putin simply gave bombers a green light. It might be not nice from a simple citizen viewpoint, but in terms of a power of a nation and country, everything's held together, mostly.
Huh, I lean towards nationalism, ain't I? Well, my country is being sold piece-by-piece to highest bidder, it comes from there.
Nacho, you have very black-and-white view on communist era. Are you sure you know what you're talking about? People under soviet rule were not as unhappy as you might think. The system was actually great in most parts. What made it fragile was
* lack of luxuries and free market - everyone wants to have coolest car and tv - having exactly same as neighbor isn't interesting and maked you look West.
* nationalism and immigration - russians everywhere, moscow as the general ruler, the word "socialist republic" actually meaning "russian province"
* the method Stalin tried to build communism: hardcore brainwashing, fear and isolation.
- Brainwashing meant heavy marxist learning in school, russian language in schools, too much Lenin-praying, a cult (read: The Party)
- Fear I described earlier. If you were unhappy with system and let people see it, you were in BIG trouble
- isolation meant no "capitalist" countries for you to visit, no foreign tv channels, japanese tv or american car
If communism was built onto something different and actually gave people a choice between capitalism and communism, while eliminating three previous methods of holding, it might have grown into something workable and I'm sure many people would actually CHOOSE it over capitalism. Because in the start, people DID choose it, during great October Revolution.
HUGE amount of Russians think of Soviet era as the best days even today. They loved it! It's rest of Europe who didn't like occupying at all.
But free choice is not how Marx and Engels imagined it.
Somebody should re-write socialism basics to fit into modern world and it might just work.
Yes, I am sure.
I don't know, doesn't seem like there's a lot of personal accountability in this system. In the world of business you create a position for the one (or few) person (people) who are held accountable for the overall performance of your company. You give these people a reasonable amount of executive power and a big fat paycheck to make sure they have more invested in the company's well-being than anyone else. Of course, today those mechanics are being sabotaged by the 'financial parachute', but that's a flaw in the system, not the idea behind it.
Governments need the same mechanics of accountability, because any model should start with the premise: in time, the system will be corrupted. A corruption-proof system is as realistic as a hacker-proof computer network; your encryption keys might be incredibly powerful, but people who have the knowledge and resources will always find a back door. Technocratic systems (for instance, the European Union) are mostly a potent way to dissolve personal accountability, which isn't a good way to limit corruption. You end up with a lot of people who have a lot to gain by keeping back-doors open, and nobody who has everything to lose if people find out about them.
Well, Communism attempts to break the vicious cycle of Finite Needs but Infinite Wants, right? Now, if we mix that with basic agendas - people want the best situation possible for themselves - then you have your basic flaw with Communism. Almost nobody would give up their allusions to all those Wants they have for the sake of giving everybody an equal amount of Wants. True Communism will always require a change in the human condition.
That said, as a Liberal, I'm an eternal optimist about people. Any system of government can work well. It just needs the right circumstance and the right leader. Democracy is over 3000 years old as a concept, and is the most stable structure we have.
- Huw
EDIT: Then again, Comminism has never been truely tried. It's been forced (IE Bolshevikism) but it has always required a natural series of events (Menshevikism).
Quote
Then again, Comminism has never been truely tried. It's been forced (IE Bolshevikism) but it has always required a natural series of events (Menshevikism).
The "Communism has never been truly tried.." thing is a tiresome excuse for failure. I've heard it many time but I've never heard anyone give a thoughtful explanation. Communal human societies have been in exsistence as long as there have been people. They all have a number of traits in common, the most notable of which is poverty.
Just look around the world and where you find the most severe poverty you will also likely find a tradition of some kind of communal system, where the group or society owns property rather than individuals.
Quote
... Communism attempts to break the vicious cycle of Finite Needs but Infinite Wants ...
I think you meant to say "Finite Means" instead of "Finite Needs". Regardless, your statement would indicate that communism's basic premise is flawed. What you describe as a vicious cycle is what drives progress and creates wealth. It doesn't need to be broken and in fact is necessary for a society to prosper. If it were human nature to be satisfied with just having one's basic needs met we would still be living in mud huts and eating berries. I guess there are still examples where people still live in mud huts and have little more than berries to eat. I'd bet they didn't get that way through a system or tradition of individual freedoms, individual property rights, and free market capitalism.
Quote
.. people want the best situation possible for themselves ...
What's wrong with this kind of thinking. Isn't it good thing that people want to improve themselves and their living conditions? Imagine what it would be like if this were not the case? Instead of typing and reading shit on the internet we would probably all be roaming around the woods half naked looking for berries.
Quote
Almost nobody would give up their allusions to all those Wants they have for the sake of giving everybody an equal amount of Wants ...
Except those people who would stand to gain power and/or those who get to sit on their asses all day for a living. The reason it's been forced is that people won't voluntarily submit to it, especially the people who do all the hard and undesirable work
that's required to keep a society functioning.
Quote
True Communism will always require a change in the human condition.
This is the best condemnation of communism as I have ever heard or could have thought of myself. If communism is unable to serve the needs and wants of humanity or inspire it to progress and prosper then WTF good is it?
QuoteThis is the best condemnation of communism as I have ever heard or could have thought of myself. If communism is unable to serve the needs and wants of humanity or inspire it to progress and prosper then WTF good is it?
So, people pulled triple shifts at work during Five Year Plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-Year_Plan_(USSR)) out of will to NOT prosper or progress?
Every kid wanted to be a cosmonaut, every worker wanted to be the best in his factory/whatever, every factory competed with every other simply out of boredom?
Socialist competition to improve Union, the big idea was simply a joke? US launched smear'n'fear campaigns on daily basis just because USSR was NOT growing a bigger economic and military threat day-by-day at all and simply needed that last push into hell?
Space Race, Arms race, it was only one sided where Soviet Union (the PEOPLE of USSR) had really no wish or motivation to become the greatest?
"Oh yeah, let's get this Sputnik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik) built so our leader would shut up already?"
....
you are crazy people. If anything, the ACTUAL wish to be even better, progress even more is what tore union apart. They really shouldn't have embargoed american cars and japanese TV's. Or foreign travel.
The communist worker, after reaching the limits of being best in his work, realized, that in western countries, he could profit much more from his skills and experience. And live much more luxurious life. This is when they started to look West.
Quote from: RickJ on Mon 17/11/2008 09:00:26
Just look around the world and where you find the most severe poverty you will also likely find a tradition of some kind of communal system, where the group or society owns property rather than individuals.
I challenge that statement, instead I think you'll find traces of capitalism there; some individuals taking as much property as they possibly can, ignoring the needs of others.
If your definition of communism is that people simply don't own anything, then yes, it can automatically be applied to all systems where poverty is present, but this is a very simplified definition.
Communism does not mean that a particular group of people owns everything, it means that everyone owns everything, only that they share it, and are not allowed to collect excessive amount of said property just because they can.
And if you think it's tiresome to hear the "you can't blame communism because it hasn't been tried"-argument, well, get used to it. Because it hasn't really been tried; what you've got so far has been dictators taking control of everything and enslaving people. Then they've called it communism, because, well, you have to call it something.
That's like blaming Christianity for the Spanish inquisition. It's narrow-minded and illogical. People always kill - and die - in the name of something.
I don't personally advocate communism, because I think the alleged benefits from it are exaggerated. I don't think rivalry and jelousy and revenge and competition will cease to exist just because people share their material property; such traits are fundamental and will be channelled in other ways. We are identified by our differences. It is by excluding people we form teams and groups.
I also support democracy - preferably social democracy - but I have a gripe with people who dismiss everything but the capitalistic way, as if that way isn't also smeared with blood from people who died in its name.
This interesting post (yours that is, modesty prevents me from posting such judgment about my own)
One aspect which your technocracy doesn't take into account, is the human incapability to deal with power. Sure, in atechnical level we can deal with it (electric power, mechanic power, etc) but with political power our brains fall apart. That's the whole reason we need some form of demarchy,which poses all sorts of other problems. (like he populists claiming those ppulists who disagree with them are cheap populists).
I sense the danger of this thread becoming a political one. Take action, Pumaman! ;D
There lots of interesting theories against capitalism... Hundreds, Thousands, I could say... And all those theories crash against just one little thing: Reality. :)
Quote
So, people pulled triple shifts at work during Five Year Plan out of will to NOT prosper or progress?
Every kid wanted to be a cosmonaut, every worker wanted to be the best in his factory/whatever, every factory competed with every other simply out of boredom?
...
...
...
Yes and in spite of all that pride, effort, willingness to sacrifice, good intentions, etc, etc, etc it all amounted to a slow ride to the poor house. :=
Quote
The communist worker, after reaching the limits of being best in his work, realized, that in western countries, he could profit much more from his skills and experience. And live much more luxurious life. This is when they started to look West.
That's how they knew they were poor and that their needs were not being served by their ideology. It must have been an embarrassing realization.
Quote
And if you think it's tiresome to hear the "you can't blame communism because it hasn't been tried"-argument, well, get used to it. Because it hasn't really been tried; what you've got so far has been dictators taking control of everything and enslaving people. Then they've called it communism, because, well, you have to call it something.
In fact it was tried by the first European settlers to arrive in North America in 1620. known as "The Pilgrims" over here in the US when they first arrived each family was given a plot of land to farm but it was decided that the harvest would be shared evenly.
After one year half of them were dead from starvation and malnourishment. The
governor did not survive and was replaced by William Bradford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bradford_(1590-1657)) who abolished the sharing policy so that each family could keep whatever it produced. The change produced spectacular results. The harvest was so bountiful they were able to have a huge feast and even invite their aboriginal neighbours. It's all documented in Willam Bradford's journal including his analysis and observations of why the communal system failed.
Even the communist Chinese know that communism is a loser and are abandoning it as fast as they can without the party loosing it's political power. They have embraced capitalism but they are still essentially a brutal dictatorship. Their economy has been growing for several decades now at 8-10% per year in spite of the government still being the same old dictatorship.
Quote
If your definition of communism is that people simply don't own anything, then yes, it can automatically be applied to all systems where poverty is present, but this is a very simplified definition.
Communism does not mean that a particular group of people owns everything, it means that everyone owns everything, only that they share it, and are not allowed to collect excessive amount of said property just because they can.
You must be confusing my post with someone else's? I mentioned individual property rights among several other attributes of prosperous societies. However, it seems to me that everyone owning everything is the same as nobody owning anything. Ownership of something means that one has control over it's disposrition and it's not possible to share control with everyone, not even in small groups. Just ask my wife about the TV's remote control. ;D
Quote
And if you think it's tiresome to hear the "you can't blame communism because it hasn't been tried"-argument, well, get used to it. Because it hasn't really been tried; what you've got so far has been dictators taking control of everything and enslaving people. Then they've called it communism, because, well, you have to call it something.
It's a very convenient position. Since communism is something that people won't do willingly then the only way to implement it is through coercion. When it finally fails just claim that it wasn't really tried because coercion was used to force the people into. But it's against human nature voluntarily practice communism so it can never really be tried and thus never prove itself to be a failure.
In fact InCreator's passionate response disclaims the notion that communism wasn't truly tried in the ex-soviet Union. He describes how hard people worked and how much they sincerely believed in what they were doing. He rightly points out the many of the accomplishments they rightly took great pride. And he also explains that the factor that brought everything to an end was the realization of how poor they were.
Perhaps a clever one of us can describe a scenario in which it can really be tried?
Quote
I don't personally advocate communism, because I think the alleged benefits from it are exaggerated. I don't think rivalry and jelousy and revenge and competition will cease to exist just because people share their material property; such traits are fundamental and will be channelled in other ways. We are identified by our differences. It is by excluding people we form teams and groups.
Well I've never really understood what the benefits of communism are supposed to be. It seems to me that the supposed benefits are not beneficial. However, I do pretty much agree with your above statement.
Quote
I also support democracy - preferably social democracy
I support a free society that cherishes individual freedoms. IMHO, socialism is just a slower ride to the same destination as communism. Sooner or later slackers will begin to accumulate and the producers will slowly get less productive. Wealth derived from natural resource royalties can slow the process but the end is inevtiable. But I guess to each his own poison.
Quote
... I have a gripe with people who dismiss everything but the capitalistic way, as if that way isn't also smeared with blood from people who died in its name.
Hmmmm, we hadn't yet talked about all the millions and millions of killings, and the magnitude of human suffering caused directly by communism but I supposed you felt a need to defend against that point. Btw, I have never heard of a capitalistic genocide, capitalist killing fields, nor of anyone dying in the name of capitalism. Maybe you could explain yourself.
RickJ, I am going to reply for Andail, because I know what he is going to reply :) (Specially to the last point: "How many millions communism killed?")
He will reply that he is not communist, he is a socialdemocrat.
And I must tell that many of my arguments against Andail were driven because I had the false impression that he was a die-hard communist. He is not. He just preffers 18:30 in spite of 17:30. He is a great moderate guy! :)
Now, let' s stop putting words in Andail' s mouth, and try to reply to what I think of "modetate lefts". IMHO, and matching with what you said, RickJ:
Quote"Socialism is just a slower ride to the same destination as communism. Sooner or later slackers will begin to accumulate and the producers will slowly get less productive. Wealth derived from natural resource royalties can slow the process but the end is inevtiable."
I think it's true. Socialism is like a homeopatic version of a poison. It will never be so harmless as the poison itself, but worst than nothing, that's for sure.
That' s why I allways like to post the world maps of "economycal freedom" compared with the "Average GDP per habitant index". They match almost perfectly. I don' t personally need another evidence than that; the lefter you go, the worst it goes (economically). As for morale, that' s another history.
A history that doesn't finish well for left either...
My two cents, but, to anyone involved, pleaaaase... No hard feelings.
Edit: Hehehe... as for "corruption", socialist contries don' t have a good scoreboard, either:
http://www.transparencia.org.es/MapaMundialdelaCorrupcion.jpg (http://www.transparencia.org.es/MapaMundialdelaCorrupcion.jpg)
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagen:GDP_PPP_per_capita_IMF.png (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagen:GDP_PPP_per_capita_IMF.png)
http://www.heritage.org/Index/downloads/Index2008_EconFreedomMAP.jpg (http://www.heritage.org/Index/downloads/Index2008_EconFreedomMAP.jpg)
Quote from: RickJ on Mon 17/11/2008 15:47:19
Quote
I also support democracy - preferably social democracy
I support a free society that cherishes individual freedoms. IMHO, socialism is just a slower ride to the same destination as communism. Sooner or later slackers will begin to accumulate and the producers will slowly get less productive. Wealth derived from natural resource royalties can slow the process but the end is inevtiable. But I guess to each his own poison.
Just popped into my mind, that the poor and the less productive aren't all slackers and lazy workers. Some might just be born with a social status that is less fortunate, and the rest will use their unproductivity as an excuse to not help them, because, according to the American dream, well, only people who don't want to win the competition, don't. At least that's what the social democrats are against here. It's not really communism, nor socialism, but social democracy. Social seems to be a curseword to a lot of people who don't need to be social to make it in this world.
(Tuomas posted a similar reply while I wrote this)
Quote from: RickJ on Mon 17/11/2008 15:47:19
Quote
I also support democracy - preferably social democracy
I support a free society that cherishes individual freedoms. IMHO, socialism is just a slower ride to the same destination as communism. Sooner or later slackers will begin to accumulate and the producers will slowly get less productive. Wealth derived from natural resource royalties can slow the process but the end is inevtiable. But I guess to each his own poison.
But to achieve the opposite, people should be paid based on their commitment and activity, rather than on a social status. What I mean is: it doesn't make sense - strictly from an I-want-people-to-be-productive-point of view - to pay a doctor more than a garbage-man, just because the doctor is better educated or has more social status. Each should either be paid based on his abilities, or on how hard he works.
Social democracy is - by the way - not the same as socialism. Social democracy is also a way help someone who has lost an arm to find a job that still fits his abilities. It basically means that we are all responsible for society, rather than only for our own individual
me...which basically is only a few steps away from anarchy (which is the most individualistic form of society...and shadows of it can be observed in many people who (pretend) to have a certain status).
Which is the sollutuin, Misj'? Paying him in order of how many "Communist party" assholes he licked? Because that is the "communist" system. The higher you are in the "party" ladder, the better paid. The son of the town warlord becomes "commisioner" and his life is solluted.
Same in "softer left" countries. Incentives for "being someone" are obviated, and the one escalating into bureauracy gets paid better, no matter if he is "good" or just a lazy ass with good links.
Trust me. I lived for 20 years under PSOE government.
Of course the original marxist communism didn't have salary or payment or money whatsoever, so kissing asses for money isn't really communism. Plus communism is a relatively applicable soltion to such cases as the Hilton sisters who certainly never worked for the food a lot of the people there are not getting. and that's only because of family, yet nothing to do with communism or extreme left side politics.
In your system, those benefits the Hilton sisters have would come for having a corrupted, probably criminal, ancestor, not for having a rich one. Choose.
Saying "well... that "bad things" you say of communism are not really communism" is easy. If I can use that argument I would never loose:
"-I like my football team. It' s the best world ever. It has one all the champions league so far. 100% of efectiveness... perfect!
-What? It has only one two.
-Well... that two are the ones that count. The rest do not"
See? Choosing the "good/bucholic/nice" parts of a theory and saying that "that' s the truth" is cheating. Seeing how theories work in the reality is the truth.
All the "bad things" we say about communism are because... communism is that. Simply as that. It' s not that "the system is ok, people has flaws". It' s not that there is a judeo-mason conspiracy to make a good system off. It' s just that the system, the most you think of it, the worst it is.
QuoteIMHO, socialism is just a slower ride to the same destination as communism. Sooner or later slackers will begin to accumulate and the producers will slowly get less productive. Wealth derived from natural resource royalties can slow the process but the end is inevtiable.
You and I seem to share parallel lines of thought on this subject, RickJ. Socialism is this pervasive thing that has a tendency to creep up on you and sounds wonderful
in theory. Take the whole idea that wealth shouldn't just be in the hands of the wealthy entrepreneurs and go-getters but in the hands of the common man, who is elevated up in this system to be on equal terms with those who may, quite honestly, be working harder to achieve their rewards than he. The problem with forcing everyone to be on equal footing and to accept equal everything, though, is the fact that
we are not all equal.
Let me clarify.
The US Declaration of Independence includes many wonderful and memorable lines, but to me the single most important one is the proclamation that all Americans have the right to 'Life, Liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness'. The key word here is pursuit, because no one has the right to guarantee anyone happiness.
Why? Because there are no guarantees, and trying to force everyone to operate at the same level robs some people of happiness to grant it to others, and any way you call this it's an unfair judgment.
Capitalism (and specifically capitalist democracy) attempts to address this issue directly by making each person a force unto themselves, responsible for their own success or failure and beholden to none but their own conscience. Are there corrupt rich people in this world? Yes, but those exist in all forms of government and will for all time. Socialism couldn't prevent this, because for every idealist there are 10 people who are in this world for themselves and don't really care about anyone else. This is why capitalism works, because if you are willing to put genuine effort forth you will succeed more than you will fail, and it rewards innovation and entrepreneurship, creativity and experimentation. Socialism does not reward intellectual diversity any more than communism, because no one is encouraged or rewarded for standing out or blazing a trail.
A little-known but good example of this in American history has been the implementation of the Federal Income Tax and the creation of welfare and other public works. Prior to the income tax (which is Unconstitutional, anyway) the concepts of personal charity and taking care of your fellow man were very much a part of American culture. Many hospitals were run by churches with volunteer doctors caring for the sick for little to no money, and many of these were subsidized not by the government, not by businesses, but by you and I, through donations. Charity here meant something because it was an American's
conscious choice to do so, and you knew there were no umbrella systems out there to care for these people without it. Now we will fast-forward to post-welfare days, where Americans have grown steadily apathetic about the issue. Why? Well, one of the primary reasons is that a chunk of their money is automatically withdrawn to care for the old (Social Security) and for the poor/unfortunate (welfare and other public works). Because this is something done grudgingly by many, they feel they are already contributing and see no reason to be charitable. The income tax, when used for these purposes, is a socialist concept because it makes everyone who can pay to take care of those who cannot. It sounds great in theory, but there are people out there who struggle even were they to keep every penny they make, and this additional burden just makes it that much tougher on them. Is it fair to make one group suffer for another? Because socialism and communism always involve a trade-off between the haves and the have-nots, and there always exist between these two a group of people barely hanging on.
I'm not saying capitalist democracy is the new religion, nor am I saying it's perfect, but socialism would not improve it; rather, it would widen the gulf between the citizens who feel entitled to 'the fruits of their labor' and the government's continued efforts to regulate them and rob them of their rights, and yes, that does include the rich. In spite of what everyone seems to think, some of these grossly rich people got there by genuine effort and feel they've earned every penny. Who are we to say they must give it away if that's not in their nature?
Could you slow down the spinning lizard please? And remove the grey straight line that appears in one frame.
I am saying that because the post above is flawless, I must criticise something... ^_^
EDIT: Grey line removed, but there are two pixels from the nose that are repeated in a frame, and they shouldn' t be there.
Libertarians often argue that people were more charitable before welfare came in, but even given bureaucratic inefficiency, the amount of good done by welfare way exceeded any chartable giving. Poor hospitals and workhouses were terrible places in the main.
In any case, to pull the welfare rug out from under the poor and unfortunate now would be tantamount to murder and it would require many years of gradual reduction and replacement by this supposed charity that is waiting to explode.
@ ProgZMaxBeforehand: this is not the first time we discuss different sides of the story. So you're already used to my - sometimes - harsh and sarcastic responses. I know you can handle them, so I kept them in. :)
Quote from: ProgZmax on Mon 17/11/2008 17:07:16The problem with forcing everyone to be on equal footing and to accept equal everything, though, is the fact that we are not all equal.
While we're not equal, does that also imply that we should not get equal opportunities? - Equal opportunities means that education should be free to anyone. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a payback (education could for example be a loan that people have to pay back after a number of years). But I am saying that ANYONE should be able to express his or her potential despite his or her origin (poor parents shouldn't lead to a worse education). THAT is social democracy: creating equal opportunities.
QuoteThe US Declaration of Independence includes many wonderful and memorable lines, but to me the single most important one is the proclamation that all Americans have the right to 'Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. The key word here is pursuit, because no one has the right to guarantee anyone happiness.
Which is the same as described above. This is an example of social democracy.
I am not advocating, that everyone should be paid the same. I am not saying that people should be punished for working hard, or be rewarded for being lazy. But I am saying that a society means living TOGETHER. And that also means that a certain amount of 'taking care of each other' is necessary. If you want to be part of a society then yes, society may force you to be help it sustain. I know...this is very un-american, but if you want to live in a world that revolves around you and you alone, than sod off to some island of your own (my apologies for the language).
QuoteCapitalism (and specifically capitalist democracy) attempts to address this issue directly by making each person a force unto themselves, responsible for their own success or failure and beholden to none but their own conscience
The problem with capitalist democracy is, that too many people want to have all the rights of the democracy, but none of the duties that come with it. You could say that this is a problem with any form of society, and that is true. However, the concept of capitalism favours individualism. And individualism favours anarchy. And I'm against anarchy, because it's a threat of society. Hence, capitalist democracy has the risk of becoming the same threat (similar to socialism in regard to communism).
QuoteIn spite of what everyone seems to think, some of these grossly rich people got there by genuine effort and feel they've earned every penny.
Now I am by no means saying that the rich are not allowed to be rich. Bill Gates is a great businessman (despite the fact that I believe Vista is a terrible product that should not have been sold), and he has all the right to pick the fruits of his labour. BUT he also tries to share these fruits with society. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a very good example of capital and social behaviour go hand in hand.
QuoteWho are we to say they must give it away if that's not in their nature?
As I said: you wanna be part of this society then you have to play a part in this society. Otherwise you're useless and - possibly even - a threat. You don't like it, bye bye. Take your yacht and sail to some island of your own.
@ NachoQuote from: Nacho on Mon 17/11/2008 16:18:27Which is the sollutuin, Misj'? Paying him in order of how many "Communist party" assholes he licked? Because that is the "communist" system. The higher you are in the "party" ladder, the better paid. The son of the town warlord becomes "commisioner" and his life is solluted.
Did I - in any way - imply that? - No! - I just said that "people should be paid based on their commitment and activity, rather than on a social status". This is the absolute opposite of what you were accusing me of of saying. So please refrain from such accusations in the future, because they do not put you in too good a light. And it makes me hostile towards whatever you say, despite how well thought out or relevant it might be. At that point, discussion is dead...and I for one don't want that. My apologies if I sound harsh, but it was written with the best intentions (though possibly not the best words).
Social democracy isn't just creating equal opportunities, Misj, it's
forcing them in situations where they should not, or naturally do not occur. Your example of anyone being able to realize their potential is, and I mean no disrespect, naive. Why should people take money they rightfully earn and give it to someone they don't know so they can go to school and be educated? This sounds charitable and very morally upright on paper, but again, you're taking from one group to give to another, which I stand by my belief to be a morally bankrupt solution.
And taking care of each other needs to be voluntary in my view for it to be worth any type of discussion whatever; when you withdraw the human element from a situation, the CONSCIOUS CHOICE to do or not do something, you invalidate its value in my eyes. Voluntary efforts, personal charity, these things I value highly; forced charity, forced efforts for someone else's well being I do not and will not value as being anything other than a consequence of forced, distasteful socialism.
Yes, capitalism does suffer from people wanting the benefits but none of the costs, but so does every other ideology out there including socialism. Too many people on this planet are selfish, and your own argument damages the strength of a socialist system because, by our very nature,
people would simply not be satisfied with being equal in all things. Ever heard of Keeping up with the Joneses? It's this concept of wanting better, wanting more, that has driven humanity (for better and worse) forward.
The Foundation you speak of is a charitable organization, which isn't socialism unless you stretch the very definition to your will. There's a difference here between personal charity and public welfare that both you and SSH need to be aware of. I'm not sure how much either of you have read on this subject, but perhaps this rather old (but very informative) article will help:
https://mises.org/humanaction/chap35sec2.asp
And continuing with that article, I'd like to draw special attention to this paragraph (to address SSH's comments, mainly):
Quote
The charity system is criticized for two defects. One is the paucity of the means available. However, the more capitalism progresses and increases wealth, the more sufficient become the charity funds. On the one hand, people are more ready to donate in proportion to the improvement in their own well-being. On the other hand, the number of the needy drops concomitantly. Even for those with moderate incomes the opportunity is offered, by saving and insurance policies, to provide for accidents, sickness, old age, the education of their [p. 838] children, and the support of widows and orphans. It is highly probable that the funds of the charitable institutions would be sufficient in the capitalist countries if interventionism were not to sabotage the essential institutions of the market economy. Credit expansion and inflationary increase of the quantity of money frustrate the "common man's" attempts to save and to accumulate reserves for less propitious days. But the other procedures of interventionism are hardly less injurious to the vital interests of the wage earners and salaried employees, the professions, and the owners of small-size business. The greater part of those assisted by charitable institutions are needy only because interventionism has made them so. At the same time inflation and the endeavors to lower the rate of interest below the potential market rates virtually expropriate the endowments of hospitals, asylums, orphanages, and similar establishments. As far as the welfare propagandists lament the insufficiency of the funds available for assistance, they lament one of the results of the policies that they themselves are advocating.
Nothing I've read has given me the impression that hospitals had dire conditions prior to welfare, SSH; on the contrary, many doctors from the pre-welfare days who are still living have said the conditions there were often better because they did not have to wade through so much red tape in order to treat patients (and medicine costs were lower, etc). If you have a study on this that you'd like me to read, I'd like to see it.
Communism versus capitalism has been discussed before, indeed. Capitalism has story and reality as a support. Communism has nothing.
Any ideas for something better than capitalism? Ok... I am able to read them. I would love to find something better, but nothing better has been found atm.
Period.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Mon 17/11/2008 18:32:32And taking care of each other needs to be voluntary in my view for it to be worth any type of discussion whatever; when you withdraw the human element from a situation, the CONSCIOUS CHOICE to do or not do something, you invalidate its value in my eyes.
While I understand (and partly share) this argument both from an ethical and individual point of view. It also raises the question: "if you're (really) hungry will the cheese-sandwich taste worse if it's given to you by law rather than by choice?"
QuoteYes, capitalism does suffer from people wanting the benefits but none of the costs, but so does every other ideology out there including socialism. Too many people on this planet are selfish, and your own argument damages the strength of a socialist system because, by our very nature, people would simply not be satisfied with being equal in all things.
But I'm not advocating socialism here. I'm not saying everyone has to be equal. But I am saying that you don't live in society alone, and have responsibilities towards that society. If these responsibilities are not regarded by choice than they are forced upon you, because otherwise society will collapse. It's the same with a traffic fine: if you do not choose to stop for the red light then we force it on you by giving you a fine.
QuoteThe Foundation you speak of is a charitable organization, which isn't socialism unless you stretch the very definition to your will.
I never said it was. Nor did I ever advocate socialism. I advocated SOCIAL behaviour, and a democracy driven by social behaviour: thus social democracy. This - and I repeat this - is NOT socialism. Social democracy does not deny in any way personal development, nor force equality. But at the same time it does state that 'being a society is not something you do alone'. If you can point me to a single person who made money completely on his own (completely without society in whatever way) then - maybe - I wouldn't mind this person to give something back. But as long as you're part of society you will have to play the whole part. If that means that people who've been given more by society should also give more back, then that's fine by me. But people who believe they can take but not give...I'm sorry, but those are people, whether they're called antisocial, capitalists, communists, socialists or Americans (because I haven't ticked them of enough already ;) ) doesn't matter. They are a threat.
RickJ, sometimes when I read your posts I hear the voice of a bitter person who's upset with all the unemployed people in his community, and how they slack and pretend to be sick and abuse the system and whatnot.
I've worked all my adult life and never recieved a dime in wellfare money except for loans for my studies. There has never been a period in my life where I've relied on others' money or wished there was a system I could live in which would give me things without having to work for them.
I've wiped old people's arses, a lot, just to be economically independent.
As I've said, I support democracy, but at least I have the imagination to understand why people desire different systems, why people have visions. You are so stuck in the American way - everyone who's got visions that go beyond owning stuff are hippies or communists.
Learn a new trick, Rick, you're so predictable it's boring.
If all the people were like you communism might probably succedd, Petter... :)
:o
You capitalism-embracing people really scare me. Not a single bit of free thinking? Is it hundred years of american brainwash or simply greed?
I've got an idea for you!
Right now, we have worker class doing the dirty work. Despite their productivity, they still want a wage.
Even those asians in shoe factories and so on.
Why not cut some money from there? We could go to third world country, stick em' all onto a ship and bring home. To work for free. As slaves? No wage for worker, more ice cream for everyone!
Now wouldn't it be swell? Wait... this is like déja vu...
I called capitalism a voluntary slavery in other thread. Now why should it be voluntary?
As said before... tell us the alternative.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Mon 17/11/2008 18:32:32
Why should people take money they rightfully earn and give it to someone they don't know so they can go to school and be educated? This sounds charitable and very morally upright on paper, but again, you're taking from one group to give to another, which I stand by my belief to be a morally bankrupt solution.
Well, some people believe that property is theft, so you're taking the right for other people to use your money away from them by denying them acccess to it. Points of view.
And of course, here's where we mention social contracts and you say "I never signed no steenking contract" etc. Well, lets see the contract that people sign before they eat food in a restaurant. Don't use the infrastructure of where you live and we'll see how long you last.
Quote
And taking care of each other needs to be voluntary in my view for it to be worth any type of discussion whatever; when you withdraw the human element from a situation, the CONSCIOUS CHOICE to do or not do something, you invalidate its value in my eyes.
I daily have to gently encourage (i.e. force) my children to brush their teeth. Does that stop its value in preventing tooth decay?
Quote
Nothing I've read has given me the impression that hospitals had dire conditions prior to welfare, SSH; on the contrary, many doctors from the pre-welfare days who are still living have said the conditions there were often better because they did not have to wade through so much red tape in order to treat patients (and medicine costs were lower, etc). If you have a study on this that you'd like me to read, I'd like to see it.
In Britain, we study these things at school. I can't speak to America, but life was pretty bleak for the poor here. Even after health insurance was forced upon workers in the early 20th century, things were very inequitable (see the movie or book "The Citadel") and so the NHS was born.
Quote from: Nacho on Mon 17/11/2008 20:11:36
As said before... tell us the alternative.
Social Democracy for the win!
Quote from: SSH on Mon 17/11/2008 20:25:20
Quote from: Nacho on Mon 17/11/2008 20:11:36
As said before... tell us the alternative.
Social Democracy for the win!
But that was communism, right? :P
Quote from: Tuomas on Mon 17/11/2008 20:43:49
But that was communism, right? :P
Well, its what the UK has right now...
Surprised that the OPs proposal of the army filling in for schoolteachers during a crisis has been ignored. I guess that's what happens when somebody says 'politics' on this forum..
Capitalism, a lengthy play:
State: Everybody must own everything! Nothing must be shared!
Bank: Allright, we will grant people ludicrous loans even though they can't afford to pay them back.
Bank director: Sure, why not? We get our quarterly bonuses regardless of what happens to the bank. Oops, time to go and get my second 300 million dollar bonus this year.
Citizens: Yay, million dollar loans, now we can own ridiculously expensive houses that look like the ones on TV! We don't need welfare money now! We are rich!
Bank: Looks like we can't get enough people to pay interest on their loans, let's borrow money from a bigger bank.
Bigger bank: Sure thang ;P It's what the state wants!
Bank director: Let's all go and get our bonuses! We can take my helicopter!
Bigger bank director: Okidoke, but to afford all this we need to raise the interest rates to get more money.
Citizens: Darn, those rates sure are getting expensive. Let's take a stupidly expensive short term loan to pay the rents this month.
Citizens: All right, now we're doomed. We need to leave the house and declare bankruptcy.
Bank: But what about the loan? Our money?
Citizens: Sorry, no can do. We ain't got 'em. Time to get some welfare money from the state.
Bank director: Increase the rates to get more money to the bank.
Bigger bank: Hey, smaller bank, you're not paying back your loans anymore.
Bank director: Let's discuss this while we collect our bonuses. There's still some money in our bank to use on our personal luxury!
Bank director: Ok, now almost all the money is gone. Let's take the last as a golden handshake and declare bankruptcy.
Bigger bank: Rats, we're quickly losing money on smaller banks that can't pay back their loans.
Bigger bank director: Time to leave this sinking ship. Let's grab what's left and declare bankruptcy.
State: Hey, what's up with all these big banks bankrupting and all? Let's inject hundreds of millions of the tax-payers' money to save them!
Citizens: That smells like socialism! Using the state's tax money to help private banks?
State: Ummm...look, it's raining outside.
Banks: Yay, bailout plan cash!
State: Promise to use them to lend money to citizens, it's important that they feel rich and can consume material property using money that isn't really theirs.
Citizens: We don't really feel like shopping anymore, what will all this crisis and everything....
State: For crying out loud, shop, goddammit!! Pursue your dreams!
Rince and repeat.
What you wrote above is a caricature... Since it is a caricature I am not going to reply to it with arguments, since you didn' t wrote an argument. :)
I might reply to you with the caricature of how socialdemocrats policies work, but I just don' t see the point.
Quote from: Nacho on Tue 18/11/2008 13:09:04
What you wrote above is a caricature... Since it is a caricature I am not going to reply to it with arguments, since you didn' t wrote an argument. :)
Why, because it's too funny? Did you choke on your cigar? :P
But seriously, isn't it hilarious that you need a socialistic approach to solve a problem caused by purely capitalistic motives?
So the big banks, run dry by greedy directors, in the end need
tax money to survive?
Isn't that ironic, don't you think? Yes it is, Nacho, it's like freaking rain on your wedding day, it's so ironic it makes me pee, frankly
I never advocated for statal interventionism for solluting the actual crisis... Why do you refer to me? Why don' t you to the people who took the decission to intevene?
If you ask me, I advocate for using that taxes for covering the quantities that people was saving in the "corrupted" banks, and just for that. I don' t see the point of giving money to people who managed money unpropperly. Why doing that? Who ensures us that they are not going to piss it off again? How can I know that they are going to use that money for covering the payments they are facing and that they are not going to imbark in another risky business? "Why should we be carefull next time? This idiots of the Government are going to save our ass if we fuck it up again!!!" :D
Give the money back to its licit owners (The people) and they will move that money to serious banks.
What? The corrupted banks will collapse? Yes, that's preciselly what I mean. Sorry for them.
Anyway, I never thought that giving credits to "no income, no jobs, no assets people" was a distinctive stroke of free market policies. (?) I thought that in a situation of a free market, banks would never give credits to that ones who can' t pay. Who could have been the person who pissed it off? Mmmmmm...
http://www.aikenjournal.org/2008/09/clinton-and-subprime-crisis.html (http://www.aikenjournal.org/2008/09/clinton-and-subprime-crisis.html)
And now I am going to shut up... I have read my posts again and I don' t think I' ve been that unpolite to receive sentences like the last one you wrote, so, for not entangle this even more, you win.
Capitalism is shit, social democrats policies are the best sollution, they have been before, and they will ever be!
Hurray!
ACtually the last sentence was just me getting carried away with how USA handled the crisis, it wasn't so much directed at you. I just addressed you to bring attention to how utterly ironic it all is.
Either way, nuff of this quarreling!
The cigar thing puzzled me a bit as well... What do you thing I am, an evil cigar-smoker version of the capitalist monopoly character??? :)
Considering your comments on anything else here aside capitalism, I do imagine you so... ;D
You forgot monocle from the list! And a top hat.
Quote from: InCreator on Tue 18/11/2008 22:54:12
Considering your comments on anything else here aside capitalism, I do imagine you so... ;D
You forgot monocle from the list! And a top hat.
And a tiny silver car, don't forget that.
Seems this has degraded into a "pros and cons of communism" thing!
Come on, tell me he is not the best character ever! (Maybe second, after Vegeta) :D
(http://www.artsability.co.uk/Uncle_Scroouge.jpg)
Andail:
You do realize that these bailout concepts aren't supported and work against a free market economy, correct (in other words, they weren't needed, they were chosen)? In free markets, companies who do good business and make wise investments are elevated, while those who venture into mal-investment fall apart. But here we've had too many special interests with their fingers in the pie, propping up a system that should liquidate mal-investment and bad debt and be replaced by something better and more efficient. Your statement was ironic, I agree, but perhaps not for the reasons you may believe :).
Misj: I'm tending to lean toward us agreeing more than we actually disagree on this subject. I do think people should act to improve the lot of their fellow man, but as I've said before it should be voluntary to be of any value. This is why I'm opposed to socialist 'solutions', because they rob you of that choice and turn the exchange into a santized, emotionless event. It also encourages people who do not really need help to take advantage of it, which is happening in the US with welfare and SSI at an alarming rate. People come to rely on these systems as a replacement for honest labor and some never intend to stop using them because of this mythic idea that the money comes from the government. On the other hand, there are people who really need the help in the short term and I think it's great that it's there, but I also think that the additional influx of money to the American people from not being forced to pay for these schemes would be more than satisfactory to handle the people who really need it. I'm a strong advocate of helping people who need it, but I am also a strong believer that this help should be made voluntarily -- yes, SSH, even if some people would not choose to help. Hopefully that clears up any ambiguities.
SSH: I've studied American history for quite some years now, and I can only say that nothing has pointed me toward some imminent situation of poor health care that required a change (which, as you said, occured in the UK). If you do find an article on this I'd like to see it, and I'll see if I can rent that movie you suggested. Also, as you're intelligent enough to know, there is a world of difference between making children brush their teeth and forcing a nation of adults to pay for welfare and SSI.
If you want to discuss this reasonably, at least provide an argument that merits comparison, please.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Wed 19/11/2008 10:24:34
SSH: I've studied American history for quite some years now, and I can only say that nothing has pointed me toward some imminent situation of poor health care that required a change (which, as you said, occured in the UK). If you do find an article on this I'd like to see it, and I'll see if I can rent that movie you suggested. Also, as you're intelligent enough to know, there is a world of difference between making children brush their teeth and forcing a nation of adults to pay for welfare and SSI.
Yeah, you can't make adults make charitable donations with the promise of a bedtime story... Seriously, though, in the UK I think it is a valid comparison. In the US, there is much more of a charitable culture that just doesn't exist here. I really don't know enough about that culture to argue about it with you so I think its best if I stick to my own country's situation: I bow to your superior knowledge of the USA. We can probably agree that different countries may well need different solutions.
Personally, I think the way to make sure that welfare doesn't become a trap (i.e. no incentive to work) is to make a single, non-means-tested universal benefit to everyone. Everyone gets enough money to raise them above the poverty line. Now, this would require higher taxes but for many the amount of benefit they receive would cancel out the tax rise and only the highest earners would be worse off. It would also be way more efficient than means testing, as you just give it to everyone and don't have to do any checking or calculations.
One of the worst things about the British tax and welfare system just now is that its soooo complicated. I make sure that I give enough charitable donations through payroll giving to mean that I don't reach the tax band where I have to do a tax return as they are a nightmare, even if you have a relatively simple life like mine.
Quote
Your statement was ironic, I agree, but perhaps not for the reasons you may believe
Yes, in fact it was ironic exactly the way I believed it to be, thank you.
I think your ideas about "volontary" charity are both alarming yet symptomatic for our time.
Instead of working systematically towards decreasing the difference between rich and poor, people prefer to ease their conscience by sporadically donating money via spectacular charity events. It fuels the already flawed system and allows people to feel good about themselves.
Quote from: Andail on Wed 19/11/2008 11:45:06
I think your ideas about "volontary" charity are both alarming yet symptomatic for our time.
Instead of working systematically towards decreasing the difference between rich and poor, people prefer to ease their conscience by sporadically donating money via spectacular charity events. It fuels the already flawed system and allows people to feel good about themselves.
Seconded!
Yes, this is all I wanted to say.
But... why should rich people share their money? Taking something out you earned legally is stealing.
Of course, if you start from the basis that all rich people became rich cheating, speculating and oppressing, I understand that you want that. It should stealing to a thief. Modern Robin Hoodism, it should be great. I am with you in that!
But not all rich people did that to become rich.
Actually... none of the rich men I know did that. My parent started working as a hobby, as an account man in his grandpa' s business when he was 9. He was the third employee in importance in a bank when he was 17 (I don' t know the name of the employement in English, babel fish tells me "Comptroller"). Sub director when he was 19, director when 21, Shire director when 24 and moved to private enterprise when 30. A life of hard work, without starting of the "pole position" that having a rich father could have put him in. My grandpa had a little car school and he was not able to pay my dad the University (He did not to University, to clarify).
My actual dad' s boss is a man who came from a very little town to Benidorm in the sixties, and decided that he could do something bigger than selling milk packs. He asked for a credit and now he is one of the biggest alcohol dealers in Spain, spreading his business to discotheques and Hotels... Another live of taking risks and hard working. Speculating, opression or stealing level=0.
I know more cases. All examples of good, working people who did not take anything to anyone to be where they are.
In free market there are tools to fight agains speculation, opression and robbery, as well... All that "bad things" lefty people says about rich people is in many cases propaganda. Capitalism is not "Try to become rich at any price", no.
Capitalism is "Try to be rich", period. That "at any price" is something that left people added to make it sound worse than it is.
Associating "Rich", with "thief, corrupter, oppressor, cheater" is a caricature that has made fortune in left circles, but it's not true. It' s quite unfair and insulting if you belong to a "middle/high" status family who did nothing bad to have that welthness, too.
(Intermission: Sometimes I tend to see any people deffending socialdemocracy as a person who automatically thinks those insultant things about my familty, so I tend to be harsh and become too deffensive... I must apology for that in advance, and I promise I will not project those thinks into my friends on this thread)
Believe me, rich people hates as much as yo do corrupted people, and they open champagne bottles when one of those is caught. Nobody with principles likes cheating, no matter if that person is rich or not.
Ironically, and focusing in the European example, where ideologies are more defined than in the USA, the highest percentages of corruption are seen in countries where socialdemocrats rule (Logic, if the system puts obstacles to become free, it makes sense to become part of that system and, once there, stealing)
People who likes left (IMHO) tend to thing that "Rich people is going to share its amorale money with me, a person as intelligent as them, but who did not had the "luck" to become as rich as they are". Yes, it' s one of the principles of left. What "left supoorters" do not tend to have in mind is that "intelligent people who did not had enough luck to become rich" will have to share its money with lazy and unproductive segments of the society.
Maybe saying "Bill Gates is going to give a portion of his fortune to school teachers" sounds good. God, it even sounds good to me. Look it in this way: "Teachers will have to share it's money with pimps, thieves, lazy uneployed and sons of rich people who think they are too good to work". Now it doesn't sound that good, no?
But the thing is worse... Those "scumm people" (understand the quotes) will think "Oh, man... No matter how few I work... The State will take care of me!" and works even less.
Which is a big problem, but it' s not the biggest one: When that engine of the economy, the middle class (those teachers, those mechanics, those house maids) realise that their work is used for keeping that scumm, they will finally end thinking "Hey! Why should I work and keep that "scumm" when I can be one of them and live the life?"
Of course, what I wrote is an exaggerated caricature of the social demoracies, but... The fartest you move to the left, the closest to that it becomes. Free market in "being at 6 o'clock". Doing nothing to economy. It' s saying: "What to produce, who, and in which quantity will be decided by the people, not by me". Saying that "the right" or "the free market" is somethig else (Stablish a corrupted competition framework to keep the nowadays status quo, where rich are rich, and the poor will still be poor and opressed forever) is simply lying.
I go on.
I am for any kind of social measures to help those who have been unlucky with the opportunities they had, or didn' t had any opportunity at all. I am not for applying those social measures to lazy people who misuse the system. Do you people honestly believe that 100% of people using social services didn' t had other options? I can quote examples, dozens of them, of people who is not. Too many cases to think that those cases are residuals, but the norm.
That's why "left" people tend to focus the debate in "We help people, Capitalism do not". That' s missdirectioning the debate... Modern capitalism also does care of the disavantaged. But the debate is not that. Debating between "left" and "right" is knowing the principles of the economy.
Nacho' s economy class:
Economy is about deciding how to share limited beings. If the beings are infinite, there is no economy.
When you arrive to a desert island you must decide how to assign the limited food... There are many economical systems: "The stronger has all the coconuts, all the rest die" (Dictadure), "If you give coconuts to me, I will do your live easilly, killing the cannibals, building you a shed..." (Feudalism... If the feudal lord is strong, you must keep giving him coconuts forever, not because he is doing something good to you, because otherwise he will kill you). "I decide who harvest the coconuts, and I decide what to do with them" (Communism). "Everybody picks its own coconuts" (Capitalism).
Economy is deciding "What to produce, who does it, for who and how many to produce". The lefter you go, the less is decided by the people, and more by the government. You redouce the number of people deciding, from "everybody" in a market of perfect competition, to "very few" deciding in extreme left.
IMO, the most people deciding, the better. All the rest (capitalism is stealing, corrupting, speculating!) is false. Capitalism, is free market: DOING NOTHING. You can' t do more than that, if your ideology is doing nothing.
Touching almost nothing in economy but a small bit is not "being in the centre, but a bit to the left", is having an almost perfect free market competence. Touching lot is being socialdemocrat. Touching a lot is being communist. Removing social rights and taking decissions opposed to morele is a dictadure, no matter if it' s made by left or right governments.
There are no "futher movements to the right of the 6 o'clock", because 6 o'clock is NOT TOUCHING. All that things assigned to "the right" (Militarism, politial state, reduction of the civil rights, awaking people at the middle of the night to interrogate them, shootings without trial, etc, etc...) have been assigned to the right because left has a good marketing assistant. That things are impossible in a free market framemark for a simpy reason. All that tools of opression are... statal... How could Pinochet be "extreme right" when he used a "government army" to supress the people? How can be Hitler interventionist policies be considered as "extreme right"? National socialist, his party was called... It was.
QuoteYeah, you can't make adults make charitable donations with the promise of a bedtime story... Seriously, though, in the UK I think it is a valid comparison. In the US, there is much more of a charitable culture that just doesn't exist here. I really don't know enough about that culture to argue about it with you so I think its best if I stick to my own country's situation: I bow to your superior knowledge of the USA. We can probably agree that different countries may well need different solutions.
That's rather unfortunate if true. I know a lot of people just in my sphere who give to charity and do charitable work like working food lines and donating canned goods and such. There have been difficulties added to this from the sue-happy system my country seems to revel in (it's almost impossible to donate anything unsealed or slightly out of date, for example). To me, food is food and if someone is hungry and the food is not spoiled they should be more than happy to have a full belly. Unfortunately, many overly-liberally minded individuals with the best of intentions have made donations far more complicated than they could be, though again, there's still the donating of canned goods and such going on. I've donated canned goods on a few occasions 'just because'; it didn't make me feel superior or better about myself as Andail seems to think, I just realized I had a surplus and there were those out there who did not, just as I've worked church food lines with my mother when I was younger just to help out. Maybe it's this perspective (the perspective of someone who has grown up in and around families who do charity work) that helps me to see this side of the argument more clearly than some, and in spite of the flaws I've seen it succeed time and again. I've said it before, I know, that I think people are generally in this world for themselves, but I've seen those same people offer time of themselves rather than money to help other people at food lines and other places. Charity is one of those situations that reduces the gap between giver and recipient and allows you to see the impact of your choices (even if on a small scale). This, for some people, makes them feel they are making a difference, whereas when money is silently taken from their accounts for people they've never met...well, I've known people on both sides of the issue, some who don't mind the taxes and others who resent paying to care for someone else's well being. I don't think either person is inherently bad or good for their views, but the person resenting it usually does so because the human element has been stripped out and made into an impersonal business transaction. They don't see where the money is going, they're often suspicious if it's even going to help anyone at all, and these are legitimate concerns.
Sorry about that, got a bit ranty there.
Andail:
You're welcome. Also, if my ideas about voluntary charity are so utterly alarming for you, your solution for enforcing charity through welfare is as equally alarming for me. You would rather take a person's right to choose whether or not to do good from them than risk that they will choose not to do good, and I find that alarming.
Some regulation is necessary to keep thing working smoothly and no regulation results in unsafe conditions. The lack of proper regulation is part of what led America into the current mess it's in now. If taxes were completely eliminated then the government would have no money to do anything. Education and health care should be provided to people free of charge. By paying for a person to go to medical school the government will increase the number of competent doctors, in turn those doctors who received the free medical training should do community service for a while in order to benefit the whole of society.
There are enough bad apples out there to ruin it for everybody.
mkennedy, we are polar opposites on this issue, which is okay. I happen to believe rather strongly that too much regulation, too much bureacracy, and too many special interests are the problem, not too little.
The bigger government gets, the smaller people get.
Edit: There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal about this topic in March:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120658041972567361.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Greenspan, of course, blames everything on too much faith in the system because he's the one that put America on the money printing road to bankruptcy. It's especially odd when you take into account Greenspan's distant past as a champion of the constitution, free markets, and at one point he even warned against fiat currencies.
To summarize: I think it's clear that the main benefit of democracy is that two equally stupid ideas (for instance, communism and laissez-faire capitalism) cancel each other out. :)