Is there a best form of government?(moved to Politics)
Offline I am prob more Conservative than most here.
I did vote for Bush the 1st time around...I am a libratarian tough.
I spend much time thinking what is the best way to govern.
Economically
Socialism seems like one of those things that looks great on paper but never seems to work in larger groups. I think if you had groups of 1000 or so Socialism would be a great way to do things. But not in millions.
Capitalism seems to reward hard work. But those who start on top dont really fall too often and it is hard to get from one level to the next. Like in the US even if you are one of the few who "make it" you are rich not wealthy as Chris Rock Explained. Shaq is rich the man who signs Shaqs checks is wealthy.
It is hard too because there are so many details....
I think all drugs should be legal....personal choice. But for what age? Sure you could say adult but what if you parent give you heroin when you are underage should the govt come lock you up. Well what if it is not so black and white what if you parent buys you beer?
What about destroying the enviroment....as a libratarian I think live and let live but at what point does someones actions hurting the Earth effect me enough to react. WHat if they burn thier trash? is that enough to say dont do that? what if they own a leather making shop and dump chemicals? What amount of chemicals is safe? Then at what point shoudl you go to war over someone elses enviomental policies? What if you coutries neighbor burned tons of coal upwind from your coutries farms and was killing the crops? What if they were just destroying all their land? (when the are all starving they are going to attack that is history)
BTW did anyone here read any books by Jared Diamond?
That concludes my rambling post.
"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta
- Login to post comments
1,000 interconnected groups of 1,000 equals a million. 1,000 groups of a million equals a billion. Socialism can work on a grand scale as long as there is no competition for the basic necessities of life and no disparity in lifestyle.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
The big problem with capitalism is it keeps the rich rich and the poor poor. The idea hard work can make you succesful is very irrational - the jobs where people work like a dog are the lowest paying, while the ones where people do next to nothing often pay a fortune (ie CEO.)
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
That would be great if you had a billion robots. The problem is...
#1 war....I think it is 100% impossible not to have intergroup conflicts unless you have a very, very suppresive central govt.
#2 If everyone is equal economically than why do more than you need to? There is no tangible reward for hard work.
"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta
Yup, that is the downfall of it. The only solution that I ever thought of....and it is as unrealistic as the problem itself. You have a capitalist economic govt. when children are born they are taken and raised in govt schooling equally without regard to who the parents are. And noone would have knowledge of who is related to whom. As they age the cream would rise to the top. After becoming adults they are released into the world and it is sink or swim...noone will know who they are related to.
Never gonna happen, and I dont think I would like to live in that society anyway...but I wouldnt mind seeing it tried on another group.
"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta
One idea I have is a "maximum wage" - where the highest earner (like the CEO) in a company can only make, say 20 times what the lowest earner does. That way they couldn't have such unfairness as people trying to get by on minimum wage while the high muckity-mucks make 25 million a year.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
There is no government like no government.
I don't see why socialism couldn't work on a large scale. The main issue is how it is implemented. Look at the Spanish Revolution of 1936; for it circumstances, it was very successful.
Motivation to work shouldn't be a problem under socialism. Given the right setup, work would be quite unlike work today.
Also, Studies Find Reward Often No Motivator
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
Problem(s) are many with all forms of government. No one said anything about perfection, we were looking for 'best'.
Yes. A strong, not suppressive, central government is necessary for maintaining the organizational aspects of responsibility. In our modern age, we may soon be able to vote on every issue rather than just constituional amendments or referendums. That's the difference between 'strong' and 'suppressive'. I realize that it could come down to majority rule, but an issue that would require all legislation to pass by 75% would curtail any abuse of the 'just need one more vote' crap that happens in the congress in our present system.
Logistics, accountability, and law are all aspects of government that free and open capitalism have difficulties in providing the best case scenarios. When we allow individual 'provinces' to legislate their own territories, then there are far more instances of injustice and jealousy. I don't think I'll have to delve too deeply into this to prove a point if needed.
Education needs a strong central government to control the curriculum. In my opinion, a child in Texas needs to learn how to learn the exact same way as a child in Alaska, California, or New York. I should be able to move a family from Nevada to Florida without the child's educational structure altering at all. Try that right now. I moved my children 20 miles last year and they're getting a much better education now.
'If the work isn't done then what' has always been the question. Instead of asking people just to do 'something' then it seems more logical to me to ask people 'what can they do' and 'what do they want to do'.
In our society, it is told to us that we MUST have a job, any job. I hear people tell bums to "Get a job" all of the time without offering any ideas or assistance. Meanwhile, we have millionaires that couldn't work the closing shift at Taco Bell to save their lives. We hire immigrants to harvest vegetables and catch chickens even though a significant portion of our country couldn't catch let alone process a chicken.
If an intelligent person catches chickens and develops a better way to do it then the required work is done more quickly leaving them more free time to pursue other interests whatever they may be within society's laws. If that person can't do the work then they should be reassigned to another job. If they refuse to do any job or are incapable of doing any job then would you want them in your society anyway(I'll catch some 'flak' over that one probably,) but it wouldn't be up to just me either.
Many of the problems with things such as drugs, alcohol, and other allegedly questionably 'moral' issues of the day would be given a better basis for resolution due to the nature of the number of people needed to govern this idea of a socialist democracy.
Just my thoughts... nay, my hopes for the future. I'm pretty sure that I won't be around to see any shifting of societal paradigms. So for us, this is just mental masturbation.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Why? I don't see England, the US, and every other country in the world erupting into civil war every few years. The more suppresive the central government is, the more likely a war is. Not the less likely.
I find food and shelter to be pretty tangible.
Socialism has never truly been attempted.
It cannot have failed.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I think the inherent problem in both capitalist and classic socialist theories is that they take up persons to be economic entities.
The question of how persons are best governed cannot be answered by just taking up a certain teleological presupposition that either members of a society should be rewarded based on their input or that every member should have at least a basic minimum of goods.
I mean both these situations are equally wanted in a well ordered society, but not as a means but as a precondition to just cooperation. Or in more classical terms basic economic equality and getting what one is entitled to by hard work is a causa efficiens for a well ordered society. The final cause would be that framework which makes this economic circumstance (and assumably other circumstances) possible, which means that the notion of a 'well ordered society' as a universal would always be a case of ideal theory as the hypothetical telos of how we want to be governed.
Perhaps this sounds a bit fuzzy, but what I mean is that we first must define the meaning 'of best form government' not a posteriori in what we already find in societies, but a priori by defining in abstracto what it means for a group to commit themselves in a framework of mutual cooperation.
Imho one of the best theories that explain this methodology is that of John Rawls in "A Theory of Justice", yet he also falls in a rather slim understanding of personality.
Thanks MattShizzle for mentioning the maximum wage, its a fix worth thinking about. Personally I'm not as generous as you, though: I'd limit the top earner to 5 times that of the lowest earner.
People work the resources in a country, and the country votes on how much these people will be paid and what the resources get spent on.
I think our society and government should be run something like wikipedia.
I'm looking for more democracy than just flipping a coin between the Bush dynasty and the Clinton dynasty every 4 years.
Having read "A Theory of Justice" and Robert Nozick's response to it, "Anarchy, State, and Utopia", I have to say that Nozick destroys Rawls' system.
I see no reason that a government would be justified in creating anything like a maximum wage. Who are they going to tax without all of the rich corporations and citizens? Honestly, I think socialist systems are dehumanizing (that's not the right word, but I mean to say that they necessarily limit freedom to a great extent). They make people reliant on a government rather than the people around them and themselves for support. Certainly problems arise within every form and system of government, however I do not see where the justifications come from to allow the tremendous constraints on freedom that socialist systems require. Care to explain?
The best form of government would be any government as long as it's voluntary.
I think a definition of 'freedom' is needed to fit your question into an answerable category. It's not a problem though.
In the end, the government must be made of people. We're discussing socialism not totalitarianism.
If by 'tremendous constraints on freedom' you mean the right to usurp another person's freedom as your personal freedom then I ask you to consider the question of who protects the victims of your personal freedom? That was too long of a question.
If anything, having basic needs fulfilled by all of society does not cover all of the bases in life. If you are required to work 8 hours per day then the other 16 hours are free as long as it doesn't impinge upon others.
I'm sorry if this is a wrong question for you:
Do you think perhaps you have been conditioned to view socialism in a different manner than it should be? I ask myself this same question a lot.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
I do. Perhaps you can justify someone getting paid a million dollars for 60 minutes of play while another person works their fingers to the bone for six dollars an hour and yet another sleeps in the streets. I can't justify it, so I look for an alternative.
The same people they do now. If everyone is well off, then so is the government.
Nothing about socialism limits freedom.
You obviously misunderstand the concept. Since the government is the people, relying on it is relying on people around them.
Perhaps you could point out your so-called restrictions so I can shoot them down?
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.