While We Wait: Part 2

[Lord_Iggy]

Sounds good to me. That's why I'm glad there's a country in North America for the political left.

 

[JosefStalinator]

Sounds good to me. That's why I'm glad there's a country in North America for the political left.

I am too; so we can send everyone we don't want to support there . Why anyone with talent would live there willingly is another excellent question. I personally enjoy keeping the fruits of my labors.

 

[Crezth]

Corporations are an ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.

That's a popular quote, but really the corporate system isn't that evil. And if you restrict it too much that's socialism. Balancing doesn't really work out, but we must consider some of the goods that came out of industrialization/corporism/capitalism:

The industrial era through the modern era. These practices advanced us in 100 years farther than the rest of humanity in 5000 years. We went from shooting each other with sticks to shooting each other with bits of metal out of larger bits of metal. A crude representation to be sure, but it is definitely the result of capitalism that the way of life in America is such high quality (relative to 200 years prior).

It's high maintenance, definitely, but capitalism generates more wealth on average. The Soviets knew it during the cold war - our standard of life, even for the lower middle class, was on average better than theirs.

I think capitalism is made out to be a lot more evil than it really is.

 

[JosefStalinator]

Corporations are an ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.

That's a popular quote, but really the corporate system isn't that evil. And if you restrict it too much that's socialism. Balancing doesn't really work out, but we must consider some of the goods that came out of industrialization/corporism/capitalism:

The industrial era through the modern era. These practices advanced us in 100 years farther than the rest of humanity in 5000 years. We went from shooting each other with sticks to shooting each other with bits of metal out of larger bits of metal. A crude representation to be sure, but it is definitely the result of capitalism that the way of life in America is such high quality (relative to 200 years prior).

It's high maintenance, definitely, but capitalism generates more wealth on average. The Soviets knew it during the cold war - our standard of life, even for the lower middle class, was on average better than theirs.

I think capitalism is made out to be a lot more evil than it really is.

The problem that people generally have is that unbridled capitalism breeds quite a bit of inequality, and this is evident in the United States. Though our average quality of life is on par with Canada and the other "progressive" countries in Scandinavia, there's considerable disparity between the richest and poorest.

I personally think its worth it for the meritocracy, but I suppose other people think that economic equality is paramount to everything else. America is more individualistic and skeptical of government intervention in the economy, which is what we use to justify the inequality.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Yes. And taxation isn't so great that it makes it pointless to work harder. I think socialism is an ideal balance, at least in my views. I understand why others prefer small-government capitalism as well, I just disagree with that system.

 

[JosefStalinator]

Yes. And taxation isn't so great that it makes it pointless to work harder. I think socialism is an ideal balance, at least in my views. I understand why others prefer small-government capitalism as well, I just disagree with that system.

Honestly, socialism has become pretty leftist, as the even further left (communism, really interventionist socialism) has been totally discredited by history (and common sense). Europe's labels as socialist are a bit overused here in the US, especially as the latest set of leaders (Sarkozy, Merkel) are working to get rid of some of the more rediculous aspects and moving their economies closer to American-style capitalism.

I would consider the center a bit more leftist American capitalism, as it's already pretty bogged down by government as it is. All you'd need is to throw in universal healthcare and beef up welfare programs a bit.

 

[alex994]

While I'm not exactly very knowledgeable, and don't even care that much, Canada has quite a terrible reputation among the Chinese my parents and I know back in China. It's said to be a terrible place for them to immigrate to, the opportunities aren't as great as in the USA.

At least that's the impression I got from my parents and co. discussing Canada. But then again, they are quite capitalist and are mostly business owners who grumble about the latest wage hikes that cut into their profits

 

[a_propagandist]

I have given much thought to this matter, in fact.

Our government and corporate America are just too corrupt. The government needs to run under strict monitoring. Government employees must be rewarded for merit, efficiency, ingenuity, contribution, and speed. It is the responsibility of the voter to undertake such a cause. The voter must hold the knife over government's neck, so as to provide an incentive to succeed.

Government's responsibility is to prevent the abuses of late-stage capitalism. If pure capitalism was allowed, market failure would occur widespread and competition would cease. Government must, for one thing, develop an endowment-style revenue source (government investment and ownership, no government control). This would provide capital and bolster production. THis would also decrease dependence on the income tax. It must also fund enterprises to compete with existing market players. The government can slowly sell off stock of a company it helped fund until it loses majority holding control. Government is there to protect the consumer and the environment and the nation, provide capital, increase market competition so something like Wal-Mart cannot stagnate a market and kill competition.

For another thing, government must provide equal opportunity. It must not be allowed a monopoly. The education system has to be part public and part private. A voucher system would then allow the best schools, public or private, to succeed. A style of workfare where educational, vocational, technical training is included must be implemented. People cannot be allowed to leach off welfare. Welfare is there to help people help themselves.

The commerical and private enterprise portion of America needs to be regulated to stem abuse of the consumer and destruction of the environment as well as other things. However, government should compete with companies. In essence, government should be a competitive company on the playing field.

When we reach a point where private and public entities are allowed to compete, we have reached a high point. When a road is built, a contractor, public or private, is hired. There can be no monopoly by the government if a private organization is more efficient. There can be no private monopoly as government stands to compete constantly with any private enterprise.

In essence, one must take direct democracy for most important decisions. Representative democracy should be expanded so that the increase in representatives will be more diverse. The voters must use recall and other powers freely. The current government is lax, and competition from private entities and taxpayer threats must enforce discipline on the government. We must fire any government worker if they are not working as well as they can. Government must develop another source of revenue like investment (not control) in enterprises.

This rant is kinda disorganized, sorry; I'm still organizing this economic approach I have developed by combining ideas from socialism and capitalism and such. It is "Third Way"-ish but, in some respects, it is more radical, in others, it is more conservative.

 

[JosefStalinator]

@ Propagandist Some of your ideas are good, but its far too optimistic about the average voter's concern for such things. Most people are idiots, and popular democracy and media has ensured that they only pay attention to populist or sensationalist bull.

Your solution to many problems seems to be expanding government's role in administering the nation; but at the same time you criticize government as inefficient, corrupt, and not based on meritocracy. That's contradictory, and inviting disaster.

Also note that much "corruption" is perfectly legal (like lobbying), and is allowed to happen because of the point about the mostly unaware masses.

 

[Crezth]

The paradox of democracy is that the people don't respect it. We have abominably high numbers of non-voters in the US - and that is simply wrong. But you can't make them vote, or care, or appreciate freedom. Freedom is not free; you must strive for it.

So how can a society exist in which the people truly make the government afraid, and not the other way around? It can't. Practice forbids it.

Don't get me wrong, I love democracy to death, but when it comes to execution it is just as optimistic as communism.

Does that mean we should go fascist? No. It simply means don't expect much from the democracy we've already got.

 

[a_propagandist]

I mean to expand government, but, in the ideal scenario, the people would be educated, involved, and highly critical of government bureaucracies. The only way the government, in a perfect world, should run is like a massive company constantly under the scrutiny of the people. So, while I advocate stronger government in many fields, I also advocate greater direct power from the public and more widespread supervision of all levels of government. If we could get voters to move away from party lines for now and obtain reform for our government. Also, lobbying is something that should be deemed illegal in my idea of a good government.

Our education system is lacking, of course...

 

[LittleBoots]

No it doesn't, it just makes us sound like we can use real English, not some watered-down pansy version like American English.

Aren't you from Australia? You truly must be the authority on how the language should sound

And I've heard from some sources that American english is actually more conservative than British English, and I've read some theories that Britain once spoke more along the lines of American English, with modern British english mostly being spoken in the SouthEast. (and later spread outwards from there) I'm not sure on any of the sources of any of this, so I won't stand too strongly behind them.

I've heard the same thing, actually. Probably true, more or less. I personally switch up spellings, as I'm used to both. I do have a preference for colour and honour, but "z" is a perfectly acceptable letter.

As for politics... you will have to excuse the caustic nature of my input. Also, I will put most of this in spoilers for those who don't want to read it. Finally, I maintain that this discussion will go nowhere.

Spoiler :

Everyone is operating from different (and largely incorrect) fundamental principles on which they base their entire political belief. Government will always be corrupt. Reforms inevitably give way to more corruption. People can't be trusted to make their own decisions and the government can't be trusted to do it for them. Inefficiency blocks progress, but progress is not the Ultimate Good. The entire idea of government is riddled with insuperable, inherent problems.

Our government and corporate America are just too corrupt. The government needs to run under strict monitoring.

Who will monitor the government? The people? They are largely incompetent and easily swayed by rhetoric and flashy ad campaigns. A committee? Who monitors the committee? Somewhere, people will find a way to be corrupt. Probably those you are trusting to keep an eye on corruption.

The voter must hold the knife over government's neck, so as to provide an incentive to succeed.

The average voter is not well-informed enough to know whats best for his country. Hell, the most intelligent voters are rarely right about what to do with the country, mainly because they assume they're right.

If pure capitalism was allowed, market failure would occur widespread and competition would cease.

Prove it.

(government investment and ownership, no government control)

If they own it and are invested in it... why can't they control it?

A voucher system would then allow the best schools, public or private, to succeed.

Prove it.

People cannot be allowed to leach off welfare. Welfare is there to help people help themselves.

No perfect system can be devised that will fairly help all people while preventing those cases where people don't really deserve that. No formula will accurately determine which cases truly deserve welfare and a human judge is probably worse.

However, government should compete with companies. In essence, government should be a competitive company on the playing field.

With the extreme market advantage of having control of the laws. I thought you said the government shouldn't control companies? And what if, in the name of market efficiency, the government loses out? Why is the government just another corporation? To be completely honest with you, that sounds like an incredibly bad idea. But I must be misunderstanding something. In any case, I would love a further explanation.

In essence, one must take direct democracy for most important decisions. Representative democracy should be expanded so that the increase in representatives will be more diverse. The voters must use recall and other powers freely.

The voters are hardly iron-willed defenders of truth and justice who should be trusted with every decision. Indeed, they never change their minds on a whim; no rash decisions are ever made!

Once, in Athens, 10 Athenian Admirals fought an intense naval battle, essentially pulling a rabbit out of a hat and saving the city's military capability. A storm followed the battle, and so the men who had been lost overboard during the battle had to be left to the waves. Therefore, the Athenian people did what one would expect with ten military heroes... they executed them for failing to pick up the bodies during the storm.

Another instance of democratic forethough occured with the people of Melos. They, unsatisfied with Athenian subjugation of their formerly free island, rebelled. The people of Athens voted to slaughter every man on the island and sell the women and children into slavery. This is not an isolated incident.

There are more modern examples of democracy gone wrong, but those are two particularly shining examples.

So what is to be done? Well, for one, we must maintain two seemingly contradictory positions. One, we must realize that all government sucks, fundamentally. All government has serious flaws, some have slightly less than others. They are more similar than most people think. Two, we must realize that government is necessary and therefore do our best to make it better. However, we must think about some fundamental things before we do. Don't go around assuming that the trickle down effect is best for the economy and don't assume that a welfare state helps anyone in the long run. Progress tends to raise the standard of living and socialism impedes progress. Of course, it is my opinion that liberal democracy leads to A Brave New World and authoritarianism leads to 1984 and we're more or less doomed to one or the other in the end. Of course, I'd prefer 1984 because people are more likely to rebel against a tyranny of fear than a tyranny of pleasure, but thats just me.

Look at what is best for people. Is freedom really good? Is equality actually real? Really think about these things, don't just take them for granted. Think. Learn. Read. Don't take things for granted, but don't be too cynical.

All that said, my own beliefs (which I do not believe to be final or even close to entirely right) are that something analogous to imperial democracy works best. A hereditary or appointed constitutionally-restricted king filled by people schooled in philosophy and politics, alongside an elected (by the Senate) prime minister; a hereditary Senate balanced with a popularly elected House of Representatives (or whatever you want to call it). Its a nice balance of liberal and conservative. It prevents the whims of the public from damaging intelligent decision making by the government, but it forces the government to reckon with the will of the people. I'm definitely not anti-democracy, just anti-too much democracy. Truth isn't truth because the majority votes that it is. In any case, I haven't given it large amounts of thought because I'm not educated enough to properly evaluate it. I do know that too much liberalism and too much conservatism are both foolish and must be balanced.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

While I'm not exactly very knowledgeable, and don't even care that much, Canada has quite a terrible reputation among the Chinese my parents and I know back in China. It's said to be a terrible place for them to immigrate to, the opportunities aren't as great as in the USA.

At least that's the impression I got from my parents and co. discussing Canada. But then again, they are quite capitalist and are mostly business owners who grumble about the latest wage hikes that cut into their profits

Well, 1.2% of America's population is ethnically Chinese, while 5.09% of Canada's population is Chinese. Then again, America's total population is significantly larger than Canada's.

 

[LittleBoots]

I mean to expand government, but, in the ideal scenario, the people would be educated, involved, and highly critical of government bureaucracies.

Aaaand since that will never happen in anything above a conference of academics (and really doesn't even work then...), we might as well start thinking of a system that accomodates what most people in the world are and will ever be... ignorant

The only way the government, in a perfect world, should run is like a massive company constantly under the scrutiny of the people.

Well, I completely disagree with most parts of this sentence. A) What on earth is a perfect world? B) Does this perfect world even require government? If so, why? And how is it perfect? C) I still don't see why the government should be a company... the purpose of a company is profit, not the wellbeing of its employees.

If we could get voters to move away from party lines for now and obtain reform for our government. Also, lobbying is something that should be deemed illegal in my idea of a good government.

Meh. Maybe lobbying should be illegal, but all this is a little idealistic. Voters want to be told something easy they can believe in. They don't like thinking about difficult things. Hard to organize support for candidates that way.

Our education system is lacking, of course...

And always will be. Fully half of the populace is and always will be below average intelligence. Most people will not benefit from higher education. You cannot educate past capacity.

 

[jeps]

Well, 1.2% of America's population is ethnically Chinese, while 5.09% of Canada's population is Chinese. Then again, America's total population is significantly larger than Canada's.

Canada is preferred by the Chinese government, for various reasons.

We were the first NATO nation to recognize PRC as a real government, in 1970, (US in 1972), and because of Dr. Norman Bethune, a hero in PRC and the subject of a speech by Mao, a Canadian doctor who served in China helping during the war, and died doing so.

As well, there has been a historically large population of Chinese in Canada stemming back to the railroad. My old area was about 50% Chinese, my current one about 30% (and another 10% other asian, mainly Vietnamese, Japanese, and Korean)

 

[a_propagandist]

@ LittleBoots

For the market failure, Standard Oil and the railroad trusts of the era are examples where competition was eliminated. At that point, those monopolies would not need to innovate, one of the benefits of capitalism.

For government control, the money should be managed by professionals with a few guidelines. The government does not really know how or absolutely need to make money as professionals do. When that job is handed over, those professionals will have to succeed to prosper, thus, there is an incentive for success. We need to tap human nature, especially greed, in some of these. Guidleines would be stuff like legal enterprise and environmental protection. That money could be invested in stuff like AMD, for example, etc.

For the voucher system, it is a matter of money. If you had the choice, you would choose the best school, would you not? If you were the principal of a public or private school, you would try to succeed and increase the prestige of your school and try to increase learning, would you not? When all schools, all principals, all teachers need to compete for a voucher worth a certain amount of money, the ineffeective schools will begin to reform or will wither.

For the workfare/education welfare thing, this is not to be free. A person must be able to maintain proficiency in their learning or training to receive his or her welfare. Those who refuse to learn will be forced into manual labor. Those who refuse to work will starve or work. Those who cannot work or learn will receive help depending on whether anyone supports that person or not.

For the government on playing field thing, I mean to say that government should loan or finance competition for a market leader. This way, government can prod private enterprise into reform and innovation while private enterprise can prod government into efficiency. For the legislation portion, this government department only helps loan money or such; it does not involve legislation in the process. At this point, we would have to have faith in non-profit, citizen watch groups monitoring legislation for unfair laws and rulings. And, the government may lose out sometimes. The goal is revenue; however, the true objective is the act of keeping the market in constant competition. Competition has produced some of the greatest human advancements ever. If the government loses out, the public will gain from that competition.

This would be a pretty complicated system. Some parts are still a bit fuzzy in construction.


As for government being a company, I mean to make an analogy to the idea that the public should not be the employees, the government is there to serve the public, a large consumer of sorts. Instead of a material product or such, it is in the form of legislation, services etc. that the government serves the people. When I mention government=company, I mean to say that the government should be held to high standards. Those who don't do their job well are to be fired. Government currently has very little to lose. If an incentive, such as keeping their jobs, is in place, we will obtain the utmost from our government.

 

[JosefStalinator]

And always will be. Fully half of the populace is and always will be below average intelligence. Most people will not benefit from higher education. You cannot educate past capacity.

And the students have to want to learn. People complain about inner city schools and such being underfunded and crappy, but have to realize that the students and parents have to be willing to contribute and create a positive environment for learning. Corruption plays a large part too, as the lack of accountability comes from the parent's lack of concern about the entire system.

This of course brings up racial questions which I won't touch on, but it is defintely both cause and effect. The people need to be willing to give education a shot, and the government needs to be willing to give them the money to do so.

Paraphrase: Blah blah monarchial nonsense

Oh come on Little boots, almost everything you said was good until you got to this crap about having a hereditary head of state. What good is the Queen in England? Heads of states are FAR more trouble than their worth, because they're either totally ineffectual, or they become a rallying point for elitists, aristocrats, and the old guard, and often resist change or democracy in important times. They become a rallying point for the leftists, populists, and communists to rail against, and if anything more of a liability.

And the idea that they are at all educated is bull, they turn out to just be spoiled asses with almost no connection to the people whatsoever.

However, much of what you said about having educated elites running the country is good, so long as its based on intellect, hard work, and education.

EDIT: I tend to think a 1984 scenario is at our point in history relatively irrelevant, as we have proven that Brave New World is going to prevail in the end. It's just a matter of getting there as slow as possible .

 

[Crezth]

Or we could have an Absolute Holy Monarchy. That eliminates a lot of confusion.

Seriously, though, your view seems hopelessly idealistic. Obviously in your case for government to succeed, it needs to either be A. Absolute, thereby rendering the whole "democracy" thing moot, or B. Democratic with a hint of lemon - er, high education. Only thing is, as was already pointed out, education is not the remedy.

So your government could only function as an absolutist dictatorship, in which case the whole democracy thing becomes a non-point.

 

[a_propagandist]

However, unless you have a democracy in place along with your meritocracy, the people will eventually start to oppose against the "educated elites running the country". A meritocracy without democracy will evolve into a system where the elites pass money, welath, and OPPORTUNITY to their children.

 

[LittleBoots]

Oh come on Little boots, almost everything you said was good until you got to this crap about having a hereditary head of state. What good is the Queen in England? Heads of states are FAR more trouble than their worth, because they're either totally ineffectual, or they become a rallying point for elitists, aristocrats, and the old guard, and often resist change or democracy in important times. They become a rallying point for the leftists, populists, and communists to rail against, and if anything more of a liability.

Meh, thats a good point. I never said I'm fully committed. I only want the monarchial elements to balance crazy liberalism.

And the idea that they are at all educated is bull, they turn out to just be spoiled asses with almost no connection to the people whatsoever.

True, my system does end being as idealistic as the systems I'm criticizing. But thats why I throw views out; criticism.

However, much of what you said about having educated elites running the country is good, so long as its based on intellect, hard work, and education.

Of course, we must have no false hopes. They will be corrupt too. But maybe thats not that big a deal At least it'd be worth a try.

EDIT: I tend to think a 1984 scenario is at our point in history relatively irrelevant, as we have proven that Brave New World is going to prevail in the end. It's just a matter of getting there as slow as possible .

I completely agree. I was just offering the only two views of the rest of history I think are possible.