What is your ideal Government in real life?

[SunTzu]

CApitalism, just seemes the best for my taste.
which form of government has it to were nearly everyone gets paid ther same amount even if they don't do the same kind of work.....
i like the capitalist system cause you get paid more for your line of work.
Not much since for people to get paid the same when one person works at mcdonalds and the other is a teacher. or whatever

 

[allan]

"And good health-care, education etc. which is FREE."

No, it's not really "free"--remember those big taxes you mentioned? You have already paid for it (well, maybe not YOU yet since you're only 14, but all the working taxpayers have).

And there's the rub: what if you are a very health-conscious person, you don't smoke or drink or eat things like red meat (at least not excessively) or fattening foods, and you rigorously exercise daily. You may live well into old age without ever encountering any serious medical problems, precisely BECAUSE you had the self-discipline to do things that greatly reduced the odds of any problems.

Now take a totally undisciplined person, who gets himself addicted to cigarettes, booze, or other stuff, who is too lazy to walk two blocks to the store, let alone run a mile or do some situps or lift some weights, and who eats whatever the hell he craves, in whatever quantity, rather than sensibly.

Both you (who work hard and sacrifice some short-term gratification, to maintain your health) and this slob (who doesn't care) pay roughly the same for the POTENTIAL use of these services (i.e. taxes in excess of 50%). And in fact, if you happen to make more money at your job, you will pay more. And yet, that slob is far more likely to need these services, in far greater quantity, because of his own decisions, than you ever will.

Does this make sense? No. Does this deflect accountability for one's actions away from those who would abuse themselves? Yes, it does.

 

[Damien]

The best gov is the swiss democraty.
The power by the people.
referendums can be thrown by the people since 1891.
Constitution can't be changed without the agreement of the swiss people by referendum(since 1874).
15 to 20 referendums(called initiatives) per year.

 

[Juize]

Originally posted by allan
"And good health-care, education etc. which is FREE."

No, it's not really "free"--remember those big taxes you mentioned? You have already paid for it (well, maybe not YOU yet since you're only 14, but all the working taxpayers have).

And there's the rub: what if you are a very health-conscious person, you don't smoke or drink or eat things like red meat (at least not excessively) or fattening foods, and you rigorously exercise daily. You may live well into old age without ever encountering any serious medical problems, precisely BECAUSE you had the self-discipline to do things that greatly reduced the odds of any problems.

Now take a totally undisciplined person, who gets himself addicted to cigarettes, booze, or other stuff, who is too lazy to walk two blocks to the store, let alone run a mile or do some situps or lift some weights, and who eats whatever the hell he craves, in whatever quantity, rather than sensibly.

Both you (who work hard and sacrifice some short-term gratification, to maintain your health) and this slob (who doesn't care) pay roughly the same for the POTENTIAL use of these services (i.e. taxes in excess of 50%). And in fact, if you happen to make more money at your job, you will pay more. And yet, that slob is far more likely to need these services, in far greater quantity, because of his own decisions, than you ever will.

Does this make sense? No. Does this deflect accountability for one's actions away from those who would abuse themselves? Yes, it does.

Yeah! Why should I pay for that slob's health care! And why should I pay for doctors if someone would have a child?
I cannot get children anyway! Let's just destroy this system.

That would make sense, but here in Finland we don't have either of those persons.
Why? Because that slob who doesn't care wouldn't ever be so stupid that (s)he would risk his life
to just get some money to person x (doctor/whatever).

 

[allan]

"Why? Because that slob who doesn't care wouldn't ever be so stupid that (s)he would risk his life
to just get some money to person x (doctor/whatever)."

Are you saying that in Finland, no "slobs" exist, and everyone eats healthy foods, exercises regularly, and refrains from tobacco or excessive alcohol or drug use? I don't think so, but if there truly are no such people in Finland, then it is a very different situation from most developed countries (including the US).

And such people do not think of it as "risking their life", they don't tend to think that far ahead. No, most people who don't exercise or eat sensibly are just plain lazy and undisciplined--they don't think of the consequences of their actions that are likely to come.

They don't "risk their life" to "get money to a doctor", they "risk their life" because they don't CARE. IF they ever stopped to think about how much they would have to see these doctors later in life because of what they're doing, perhaps they would change their habits. But they don't think that far ahead, do they....

"Because that slob who doesn't care wouldn't ever be so stupid"

As you gain more life experience, you will find that STUPID people do in fact exist--and they're everywhere! It may surprise you just how stupid some of them can be, too.... I find myself surprised sometimes myself, still....

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Once upon a time, I too was able to be amazed by the capacity for intellectual stagnation that my fellow humans display.

Sadly, the idealism of youth fades into the sobriety of maturity all too soon.

Having said that, I would like to ask all the capitalists and socialists on this board to give us their accurate age. Let's let the chips of ism fall where they may. Just a quick reply, dogma / age, is all I'm looking for. Don't do it here though, I'm starting a poll topic.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Sixchan
From what I see, Labor isn't doing a very socialist job. hardly anything that was privatised under the tories has been re-nationalized, and Tony threw out the idea of nationalizing the industries when he became Labor leader.

Labour has become a social democractic party rather than a democratic socialist one, as it used to be. Personally, being commited to total nationalisation is idiotic, to me. Some things are better privatised, and others are better nationalised. Rails have already gone sort of towards nationalisation, though.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Damien
The best gov is the swiss democraty.
The power by the people.
referendums can be thrown by the people since 1891.
Constitution can't be changed without the agreement of the swiss people by referendum(since 1874).
15 to 20 referendums(called initiatives) per year.

Don't forget their power to sympathize with the Nazis.

 

[Juize]

Originally posted by allan
Are you saying that in Finland, no "slobs" exist, and everyone eats healthy foods,

Nobody eats healthy food here, except some 12-year 'hippie'-girls.

exercises regularly

Goverment is having a campaign which will put kids to play sports etc.
It's been up as far as I've been living.

, and refrains from tobacco

Goverment has also anti-tobacco campaign and in every cigarette package is having a text:
"Smoking will kill you."

or excessive alcohol

Goverment had pro-alcohol campaign in the 60s, so everybody whos old has these problems...

or drug use?

Hmm. How the hell people using drugs will be more costly to a socialist goverment than capitalist goverment?

I don't think so, but if there truly are no such people in Finland, then it is a very different situation from most developed countries (including the US).

Well, the socialist goverment has many (I mean, really, really really MANY) campaigns which will
eliminate almost any problem which you'll probably mentio

And such people do not think of it as "risking their life", they don't tend to think that far ahead. No, most people who don't exercise or eat sensibly are just plain lazy and undisciplined--they don't think of the consequences of their actions that are likely to come.

They don't "risk their life" to "get money to a doctor", they "risk their life" because they don't CARE. IF they ever stopped to think about how much they would have to see these doctors later in life because of what they're doing, perhaps they would change their habits. But they don't think that far ahead, do they....

"Because that slob who doesn't care wouldn't ever be so stupid"

As you gain more life experience, you will find that STUPID people do in fact exist--and they're everywhere! It may surprise you just how stupid some of them can be, too.... I find myself surprised sometimes myself, still....

I tend to avoid for saying someones 'stupid'.
Because stupid people really ARE everywhere! I mean, now everybody except me is stupid

 

[Damien]

Don't forget their power to sympathize with the Nazis

(posted by rmsharpe)
100% false
Swiss weren't fachist n rnt fachist.
Fachist parties succeeded in Germany because they were considered as the People's Party(Volkspartei).
They said they would freed people,put an end to workers'slavery.
But Swiss were already free.In the middle age they voted by raising their hands in reunions called Landsgemeinden n since 1891,full control was secured by the Constitution.
Y would they vote for a freeder who whould enslave people for the nation?
That's the reason y others fell into fachism n so didn't the Swiss.
19.6% of the population in Switzerland are fully integrated foreign workers called by the Confederation and 3 initiatives,which were launched the last 30 years,wishing to limit their arrival were massively rejected by the Swiss people.

 

[amadeus]

Sorry, but Switzerland, Sweden, and Finland: there's no such thing as a "neutral" country.

Sucking up to Hitler was a dumb idea for any of them.

 

[Pellaken]

uh... no one else has pointed it out, but Canada is not a socail democracy. if it was, that would be great, cause that is the perfect form of government, but it is not. If you want, I can send you a link to the Canadian Alliance political party, its like the Republican Party, both have really bad ideas

 

[Whiskey Priest]

Originally posted by Pellaken
uh... no one else has pointed it out, but Canada is not a socail democracy. if it was, that would be great, cause that is the perfect form of government, but it is not. If you want, I can send you a link to the Canadian Alliance political party, its like the Republican Party, both have really bad ideas

True. Hate the CA. But Canada might become a social democracy, by constitution, soon. Pellaken, read about the Supreme Court case involving this women from Quebec named Gosselin (sp?). A ruling in favour of the women could have far reaching ramifications.

By the way It is ridiculus to say that healthy people are being unfairly loaded with the burdon of paying for unhealthy peoples poor health. It simply isn't true. The Romanian Government (or maybe it was Czech) did a study and found that people who smoke put less of a burdon on the health care system, mainly for two reasons. 1)Taxes, Ciggerettes are taxed at a rate of 200% (in Toronto at least). That money goes towards funding the health care system. 2) Early Death, Smokers do not live as long as non smokers, so therfor they are less of a burdon on the system because the years in which people require the most health care, 60+ that is, are significantly shortened. So next time I see someone sneer at me for lighting up I'll just tell them I'm doing it for their health

 

[MrPresident]

First of all it is not Labour but "New" Labour. After the 1970s and "Stagflation" it was widely agreed that the old socialist ways just weren't relevant for the modern age. Secondly, do you know how much it costs to re-nationalise? The British government simply doesn't have enough money to re-nationlise even if it wanted to do so. The reason it doesn't want to re-nationalise is one simple word "competition". Competition creates more efficient companies, both allocatively and productively. Competition produces goods and services at higher quality and lower cost benefitting the consumer. Look at the telecommunication industry, before there was BT which was inefficient and produced services at a high price with poor quality. Now there are lots of smaller firms with lower prices, better quality and a more efficient industry. Now do you think re-nationalising the telecommunication industry is a good idea?

Also if anyone interested according to the UN's HDI (Human Development Index). The best country in the world is Canada, followed by Norway, then Japan and finally the USA. As for the once mighty Britain, 10th is its current resting place.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by MrPresident
First of all it is not Labour but "New" Labour.

"New" Labour is just a slogan. Started by the venerable John Smith of all people.

Originally posted by MrPresident
After the 1970s and "Stagflation" it was widely agreed that the old socialist ways just weren't relevant for the modern age.

Actually, it took until the 90's before Labour had generally accepted that, with the 80's being the main trasitional period.

Originally posted by MrPresident
Secondly, do you know how much it costs to re-nationalise? The British government simply doesn't have enough money to re-nationlise even if it wanted to do so. The reason it doesn't want to re-nationalise is one simple word "competition". Competition creates more efficient companies, both allocatively and productively. Competition produces goods and services at higher quality and lower cost benefitting the consumer. Look at the telecommunication industry, before there was BT which was inefficient and produced services at a high price with poor quality. Now there are lots of smaller firms with lower prices, better quality and a more efficient industry. Now do you think re-nationalising the telecommunication industry is a good idea?

As I said, nationalisation is good for some things, bad for others. rail was bad under nationalisation, but now it's even worse.

 

[Sixchan]

Now, I'm not saying that Labour has done a good job, but I'm not saying it has been particularly bad either. I'm a general supporter of the Lib Dems and the SNP most of the time, and I don't really think the railways or NHS have improved under labor (although what they plan to do about the rails now may help).
On the good side, labor have brought us closer to the Euro, devolved power to Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly, and have brought in many helpful benifits to the elderly and poor.

 

[Damien]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Sorry, but Switzerland, Sweden, and Finland: there's no such thing as a "neutral" country.

Sucking up to Hitler was a dumb idea for any of them.

Swiss didn't suck up to Hitler;many Jews took refuge in Switzerland n the swiss army,led by Henri Guisan,prevented the Nazis from invading Switzerland.
Swiss banks cooperated with the Nazis as did all european banks;even the british ones.
Btw,when i lived in Switzerland i saw a report about a very bad act,that did the UK.
The UK knew the existence of camps n could bombard the german railways;but the british army didn't because the crown feared a too important number of Jewish refugees(taken from the archives of the british secret services).
Anglo-Saxons should look at themselves:who made crosses on black people's breast n burned their houses?Who defended a pure white state?
"There are differences in that country and they will be respected" said the guy who launched Apartheid in South Africa.
Very close to the Nazis,right?

 

[Hamlet]

Labour chose to stick to tory spending plans for a few years during their first term, so hopefully the investment will start making a difference soon.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Everyone who chose capitalism, or "free-market economics," that is a reasonable choice. Personally I would prefer a socialist system where everyrone gets paid a simlar amount. I consider it a more FAIR choice. But is it the right choice? I don't know. On one hand, with capitalism, you get gross power and wealth inequities between those who OWN the right to production and property, and the working class. On the other hand, with socialism, you will get some people working harder than others at the same rate of pay. I sitll think socialism is the best choice simply based on how ridiculously slanted the welath pyramid is in the U.S. (1 % of the people in America own more than 50 % of it's wealth and property). While us poor chaps (or me, at least) are struggling with 9-5 jobs 5 days a week, celebrities, entertainers, C.E.O's, and pro athletes are not working a quarter as much as us and making 10-20 times as much money as us (sometimes 100-200 times).

But I think the Republican STANCES ON THE ISSUES are absurd. They say whatever they need to to get elected. War on Drugs? Failed. No stem cell research? Big mistake. We could be curing deadly diseases. Federal funding for religious social programs? Come on guys, seperation of church and state. It's in the Constitution! Against abortion? Women cannot be FORCED to have a child they don't want. Privatization of prisons? You mean, people are going to be making MONEY off of holding inmates in prison?!? Guys, I'm just scratching the surface here. The only thing more ridiculous than the Republican party are the poor saps who keep them in office.

Unfortunately, with the recent surge in Nationalism in America, it looks like Socialism is a dying dream. Oh well, I can always move to Canada.

 

[animepornstar]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Sorry, but Switzerland, Sweden, and Finland: there's no such thing as a "neutral" country.

Sucking up to Hitler was a dumb idea for any of them.

why can´t a country be neutral?

and if it´s the ww2 you are thinking about, i can tell you that finland wasn´t neutral.