Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - What Gov't best suits you?
| User | Post |
Arwon
Posts: 496/506 |
Originally posted by SamuraiX
Originally posted by Ailure
You could as well put some colours, both socialism and communism likes to use red for example. 
I vote for Social democracy, since communism frankly don't work. And Sweden is rather Social democratic country, so it's not like my opinions collides with other people here. And yes, it does work really well. It's one of thoose countries where a tax cut is considered a bad thing amongst alot of people.
Anarchy may work, but only for really tight societies. And, while Communism seems nice in theory it just dosen't seem to work.
How often does your government help you?
Every fortnight. |
Wurl 4.0
Posts: 138/244 |
Communism can be achieved, eventualy, but it will probably involve a revolution. For a peaceful transition, social democracy is needed. I think that eventualy a strong social democracy can become a truer communist state. And remember, there can't be true communism without strong democracy. |
SamuraiX
Posts: 122/140 |
Originally posted by Ailure
You could as well put some colours, both socialism and communism likes to use red for example.
I vote for Social democracy, since communism frankly don't work. And Sweden is rather Social democratic country, so it's not like my opinions collides with other people here. And yes, it does work really well. It's one of thoose countries where a tax cut is considered a bad thing amongst alot of people.
Anarchy may work, but only for really tight societies. And, while Communism seems nice in theory it just dosen't seem to work.
How often does your government help you? |
Ailure
Posts: 11027/11162 |
You could as well put some colours, both socialism and communism likes to use red for example.
I vote for Social democracy, since communism frankly don't work. And Sweden is rather Social democratic country, so it's not like my opinions collides with other people here. And yes, it does work really well. It's one of thoose countries where a tax cut is considered a bad thing amongst alot of people.
Anarchy may work, but only for really tight societies. And, while Communism seems nice in theory it just dosen't seem to work. |
Wurl 4.0
Posts: 135/244 |
Who wanted some of Stalin's sweet lovin'? |
Slay
Posts: 325/339 |
Well of course it's a fantasy. This society exists on a floating island. Those who we cannot reform are sent on a first-class flight back to whatever country we picked them up on, perhaps a different country if they have citizenship and desire such. But I must say, a perfect society would indeed need to expulge certain people. In most cases, this is done with prison systems; those we deem unfit to live amongst us are locked up. Depending on the circumstances and scale, simply casting them out of your general area is either more or less humane.
As for the quote you snipped, to my semantics, a government is like a highly bureaucratic business, only instead of producing commodity, it meddles in the affairs of a large group of people. If two hundred people get together and build a town for themselves, and as a group generally decide what course of actions to take as a whole, I don't see that as a government. I don't see that as a government any more than I see tribal shaman seeing over their kindred as a government.
Since I rarely use smileys (only once so far) or *actions in asterisks,* I'll say flatly here that the stipulations for this society of mine make them impossible to achieve on Earth. I'm just having a bit of fun, really. Here are a few defining concepts...
� The area of land on which this society is based is theoretically accessable to all people the world over, but only those from within can choose whom to permit.
� The population would be small, in the thousands and no more, though due to trade and visitors, there'd probably be a maximum of tens of thousands of people occupying the area at a given time.
� Self-rule exists in that a person rules their body, a group of people whom live in the same house rule their house, a neighboorhood of houses rule their neighboorhood, multiple neighboorhoods form burgs which rule themselves, and this all falls under one city. (This part is impossible because you can't rule yourself, your house, your neighboorhood and such in that scaling manner -- conflict in descision-making will inevitably occur.)
To answer this topic's query directly now, the government that best suits me would be a meritocracy. I've discussed such at length with others whom I consider to be intelligent, and I thus feel comfortable with our conclusions. Please disregard the Wikipedia article on meritocracy as you read my following words; my conclusion of what a meritocracy is differs from the Wikipedia article considerably; we simply took the raw dictionary definition (a system of rule where personal merit, rather than social standing or accumulated wealth, determines advancement) and discussed it's possibilities.
The basic principle of this meritocracy is to allow those who wish to do nothing with their lives to do just that (under the libertarian principle of letting people do as they please without harming others) while offering incentive to those who contribute to society at large. Thus, our meritocracy is a noncapitalist system where, rather than freely distributed and spent currency, there is a system of Credits of which there are three types; S-Creds, M-Creds and G-Creds (often abbreviated by the unique letter followed by an apostrophe, pronounced plurally; S' or essiz, M' or emmz, G' or geez).
S-Cred is an invented colloquial term for Standard Living Credits. These are distributed routinely to all citizens by the meritocratic system. The government provides free housing to all citizens, in which clean running water, toilet facilities, central heating/cooling and electricity are present, and provided free of cost. S-Creds are then used (and indeed legally restricted to be used only) to purchase the essentials; mainly food and clothing. With a government-provided house and S-Creds, you can live what we in America would consider a minimum-wage lifestyle without actually having to do any work. In theory, at least. S-Creds are less a way to cater to the lazy and more a way to ease the monetary concerns of the general populous (i.e. no one will have to forgoe college due to the fact that they "barely make ends meet" as it is, paying for food and lodging, among other necessities).
M-Creds are the namesake of the system, Meritous Credits. Unlike S-Creds, M' can be used to purchase anything which is purchasable, there are no restrictions on use. How do most governments of the world handle introducing currency into the economy? Federal banks. Newly created notes are shipped off to government-run banks, and the money is then passed into the hands of the citizens. In our meritocracy, M' are instead introduced to the economy from the general government which creates them, to the local government, which then dispenses them to companies and individuals. These M' are awarded based on personal merit in, among things, philosophical, artistic, scientific, medical and educational fields. In general, M-Creds are the equivilent of hard cash; earned through working a job. So basically, this system is a lot like that we see in real Earth - you get a job, your employer gives you money to spend based on the work you put into the job, and you in turn spend your money on services and goods, which puts currency back into the economy, and round and round we go - except that since these credits are dispensed more on personal merit and there is an element of government control involved (assuming that this meritocratic government is uncorrupted), you won't see cases of a nephew of a big business CEO who gives him a coushy job to do nothing all day and recieve a huge paycheck for it, and on the opposite end of the spectrum, you won't see the starving artist stuck in a dilemma over whether to spend what little money he has persuing his art or paying his rent. This system also acts to eliminate the extremely wealthy as well as the extremely poor; you won't see actors getting paid a kabillion credits for starring in one episode of a sitcom, and you won't see some homeless person wandering the cold streets of a harsh city begging for spare change. This system also (and in my opinion, most importantly) acts to further the arts and sciences, whereas an all-out capitalist nation such as the United States or United Kingdom acts only to further corporatism and greed.
G-Creds are known as Gift (or Given) Credits. Every citizen, besides being allotted a flat-rate of S-Creds to sustain themselves, are given a flat-rate of G' which are not spent on the self, but given to organizations and individuals alike. The idea is balance; maybe the government - local or federal - or maybe the employers at some point messed up, and M' aren't going to the most merited. You choose whom to give your G' to in an effort to counteract the objective view of the government with your own subjective vew. G-Creds are extremely small in ammount, about a tenth of what you recieve as S-Creds. The idea isn't to give all your G' to your best friend, family or next door neighboor, it's to use it to cast a sort of vote for the groups of scientists and humanitarian organizations and screenwriters guilds and painters and actors and musicians and such that you personally enjoy. This allows us to have it both ways; the government gives out M' based on a textbook definition of merit while the individual gives out G' based on their opinions. Your G' aren't numerous enough to just give to your friend so he can buy a new mountain bike, and you may think they aren't numerous enough to do much of anything, but that's the point; only people and organizations which have many, many people assigning their G' to them will profit. Once an individual assigns their G-Creds to another person or group, they become M-Creds. So G' aren't really a form of Credits in itself, but a method of distributing them which gives power to the people in this otherwise socialist economy.
As for other general philosophies and such of our meritocracy, healthcare is free and doctors are directly awarded M' by the government, government workers themselves don't determine how many M' they get, rather the people do (through a process established in the elections of leaders), and libertarianism is the law. The government's purpose, in our meritocracy, is to award citizens based on their personal merit, to protect public health from factors beyond their control and to protect individuals from each other, not from themselves. So you can do whatever you like, as long as you aren't disturbing the peace (graffiti and such) or hurting anybody else (attacking/killing/raping someone, destroying/stealing property). This means that the government does not restrict the use of recreational drugs (though obviously, there needs to be a measure of safety in the regulation and distribution of these drugs - so that no Joe Backalley Dealer can slip you cynide, telling you it's LSD), doesn't do all kinda crazy crap like banning gay marriage or outlawing abortion, and to my personal chagrin does not implement gun control (beyond restricting gun ownership from those with criminally violent histories). Important roles that the government has a hand in is the proper handling of meat and dairy (like a USDA), firefighting, ambulance and policing services, and a self-defense force (not an agressive military), all of which fall under the category of "protecting the public from factors beyond their control."
In our meritocracy, I like to think that the actual government is relatively small, with ever-changing members who are just as much individuals and citizens as they are government employees. With our meritocracy, we seek to eliminate the distinction between faceless government and individual citizen. This is, I think, achieved partly because this government has no interest in regulating morality like is seen so often in the U.S. and U.K. No bitching and moaning in the supreme court for twenty years over abortion rights or right to life or right to choose or whatever -- it's not the government's duty nor priviledge to meddle in the personal affairs of it's citizens beyond control of the economy, period. George W. Bush once said something, in his crusade to ban gay marraige, that he was "protecting the sanctity of marraige." Since when was the purpose of any modern government to protect the sanctity of anything?
As for the specifics beyond all this, you'll have to ask me another day. I grow short of breath. Or...fingers, since I'm typing. Yes, I would greatly prefer this meritocracy I've described to any other sort of government. I know some of you may be a bit wary or paranoid about anything other than a free market and unlimited capitalism, since most of us are so used to it, but from your viewpoint, almost nothing changes; you still get a job, go buy your videogames and fashion accessories, you still get to go to school and such. It's really only the extremely wealthy and the extremely poor who are affected drastically - the former being unable to hoard wealth and the latter being given feet to stand on, economically speaking.
Edit Follows
And another point on the casting people out from society, Arwon; this board in itself shows how no society can exist without excluding members. Could this board really continue with any semblance of order and coherence if no one was ever banned? In any group of people, there will always be those that are so disruptive as to inhibit the communication of those around them. It's sad, but it's reality. |
Arwon
Posts: 495/506 |
If your perfect society requires people to be cast out to make it work, then it strikes me that it ain't perfect at all. Any societal organisation would work great if you didn't have to deal with everyone. And history shows us that establishing systems that, by definition, exclude certain people requires fairly harsh measures against them. So really, unless your perfect society includes violent purges and starvation camps and such, it's fantasy.
What about when those guys you kick out all get together, arm and organise themselves and attack you and steal your stuff and probably kill some of you for good measure? Fancy a civil war? How are you going to make sure these "greedy" people that you want to cast out don't try and, you know, fight back? Again, I posit that short of sticking them in camps, killing them outright or driving them away through violence or threat of violence, you're not going to be able to break their political power to the extent that your system will even manage to get established, let alone make itself work.
Finally.
"simply that there is no government, and people are allowed to govern themselves."
¿Qué? Ignoring the contradiction within that sentence, I'd just like to point out that this is what systems ranging from Italian fascism to liberal democracy to Russian bolshevism has claimed to be doing. |
Slay
Posts: 324/339 |
The Grey says...
Slay, this is NOT Brave New World. People aren't simply going to cast other people out of society or reform them for being unorthodox, there aren't going to be islands in Iceland and the Falkland islands where you can go meet other errants. Eventually in a society like that, a system of rule will take place where everything does belong to everyone else. Your idea of taking in moderation and everyone producing everything has one huge weakness: You're thinking of moderation on your own terms. Some people express a physical need alongside a greed-based need subconsciously. They'd need to be conditioned to not, and that'd be exercising more control over the individual than most governments do currently.
I find such excess "need" for greed invalid, a social product of overindulging societies. They follow the rules, or they leave. But things won't be so strict; that's one major fault I see in big government, is that they have to regulate and create laws based on broad and distant definitions of actions and the crimes they constitute, while a small, autonomous community can more accurately rule on a case-by-case basis. There would be no defined or numerical limit on how much you can take, but if others express concern to you or complain of lack of posessions due to your consumption, you should perhaps reconsider your lifestyle, but ultimately, it's up to you. If you must know, I define moderation in terms of luxuries; everyone gets the necessities (food, clothing, shelter, medical care) but when it comes to luxuries, either take things temporarily or don't take more than you could possibly use in a given week -- i.e. you don't need a collection of 30,000 videogames if you only ever play ten of them. Simply put, a perfect society cannot exist without excluding certain destructive persons. Face the consequences of your actions, or leave. But you seem to be assuming things which I neither said nor implied.
The Grey says...
And what happens when there IS unorthodoxy? When two people decide they both want something at once? The person who gets it first will obviously be placed above another person, at least in the mind of the individual. That's instinct. Or if someone wants privacy, but is denied it on the grounds that nobody else wants privacy, therefore privacy can't be necessary and is thus not permissible?
I dislike your use of the term orthodox. This implies that in the nongovernment I've discussed, the odd or unusual are the ones cast out. I want to make it clear that this is far from the case. Those who are destructive and irresponsible, violent and greedy are cast out. To answer your questions directly; I doubt there will be such a case when there is only one of a given item and more than one person wants it. If you are perhaps talking about priceless works of art, I believe any group of sensible, responsible persons could form a public museum to hold such works. I'm not sure what you're even talking about concerning privacy; rereading my own post, nothing of the sort was even hinted at or alluded to. I think you've grossly misread (or perhaps overread) my post to the point of distorting it. But to answer this ridiculous question directly, privacy is a concept and not a commodity. Only commodities, not ideas or concepts, fall under the idea of "everyone produces something and takes things freely, but in moderation." You also seem to think that this system I've proposed strives towards equality to some perverted and radical degree. Such is not the case. Live and let live is the law of the land, people can pretty much do whatever they want. And my system is not to say that there will be no official laws or rules to any societies under this system; simply that there is no government, and people are allowed to govern themselves.
The Grey says...
There's going to eventually be a problem of supply, demand, and laziness. It's hard-coded into people, and you're right to think that it won't happen in this lifetime. We're too accustomed to luxury. It's not dystopian, it's ultra-utopian, based around the idea that somehow everyone will be happy and peaceful and courteous to each other when in fact we're dumb, panicky, angry animals that don't want to defy our basest instincts.
I don't believe that such traits are hard-wired into all humans, even if a great degree of us display such traits. And though my opinion is often that the masses are unintelligent, prone to panic, aggrivated, violent and selfish, that does not mean that all people are. I grew up in modern conditions and yet I am not dependant on material posessions, I am not greedy or angry, panicked or uneducated. And since I know that I cannot possibly be the only person who is like that (based not just on faith in humanity, but on pure statistical probability), I'm sure there are enough like-minded and responsible people to form a self-governing society devoid of faceless government, rutheless corporations and a monetary system.
The SamuraiX says...
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
Yet government is still needed, because you people need something to follow.=(
Aren't humans just deliciously quaint? |
SamuraiX
Posts: 97/140 |
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
Yet government is still needed, because you people need something to follow.=( |
Kefka
Posts: 3373/3392 |
Originally posted by SamuraiX
Governments should be more spread out, and less centralized. Mainly, a pure capitalist society, where the people govern themselves would fit people, since people are fated to greed.
So basically, Mr. Hobbes, you are a libertarian. You could have just said that and saved some words.  |
SamuraiX
Posts: 55/140 |
Governments should be more spread out, and less centralized. Mainly, a pure capitalist society, where the people govern themselves would fit people, since people are fated to greed. |
Wurl 4.0
Posts: 107/244 |
So, I seceeded from my History teacher's class today. |
Grey the Stampede
Posts: 3317/3770 |
Slay, this is NOT Brave New World. People aren't simply going to cast other people out of society or reform them for being unorthodox, there aren't going to be islands in Iceland and the Falkland islands where you can go meet other errants. Eventually in a society like that, a system of rule will take place where everything does belong to everyone else. Your idea of taking in moderation and everyone producing everything has one huge weakness: You're thinking of moderation on your own terms. Some people express a physical need alongside a greed-based need subconsciously. They'd need to be conditioned to not, and that'd be exercising more control over the individual than most governments do currently.
And what happens when there IS unorthodoxy? When two people decide they both want something at once? The person who gets it first will obviously be placed above another person, at least in the mind of the individual. That's instinct. Or if someone wants privacy, but is denied it on the grounds that nobody else wants privacy, therefore privacy can't be necessary and is thus not permissible?
There's going to eventually be a problem of supply, demand, and laziness. It's hard-coded into people, and you're right to think that it won't happen in this lifetime. We're too accustomed to luxury. It's not dystopian, it's ultra-utopian, based around the idea that somehow everyone will be happy and peaceful and courteous to each other when in fact we're dumb, panicky, angry animals that don't want to defy our basest instincts. |
Slay
Posts: 318/339 |
Communism. I disagree with the popular opinion that it's fine on paper and terrible in execution. My personal viewpoint is that only corrupt individuals interested in nothing but personal gain have ever tried to implement communism, thus we have no reliable sources on which to base opinions about the system of government.
Just kidding. I don't have an ideal government, because I don't think people necessarily need to be governed, and I don't think that any person, group or entity has the right to lay claims to land. But to go along with generally-established ideas, I strongly dislike socialism and am not fond of capitalism. I dislike socialism because I believe a government is not a moral nor charitable entity, nor should it be. If anything, a government should keep the people it governs from hurting each other. Period. No other intervention is acceptable.
No government-run public schooling.
No restrictions on personal drug usage.
No government opposition towards suicide (so long as it's done in a manner that does not disrupt others).
No moral laws or legislation surrounding moral issues (i.e. it's not the state's right to deny marraige or ban abortion).
No government-funded public works.
No president, prime minister or commander in chief.
You may think this extreme and chaotic, even dystopian, but look at Auroville. I honestly believe there are enough well-meaning, responsible people in the world that, if there is no distinction between the powerful and the powerless (corporations vs individuals, government vs citizens), they could simply cast out or reform destructive and ill-meaning persons without government intervention. I believe citizens can create their own public works, their own public libraries and schools, their own institutions of arts, sciences and knowledge, and to a much higher quality than any government could ever achieve.
But then, of course, comes the problem of religion. Where government is absent, religion will surely sneak in and try to control things. The one vaguely-socialist act I would agree to would be for the government to keep watch for imposed religious control of any area not fully comprised of it's own, willing members. Meaning, if ten thousand devout Christians want to get together and build a city, ruling it by the Bible, that's their right, but if any religious leader, group or organization were try to spread it's influence to areas where non-members are already populated, it is the government's responsibility to stop this.
Alas, I doubt such a dream will be fully realized in my life time.
The Edea says...
Actually it'd be nice to get rid of money entirely yet be able to define yourself however you want simultaneously, but humans are hardwired for competition and status against other humans, so it ain't happening. Forgive this generality, but that's why rich people eat a bunch of shitty-ass yet very expensive food like caviar; only -they- eat it.
Maitre d': Here is you meal, sir; foie gras and caviar.
Zoidberg (after sniffing at food): Duck liver? Fish eggs? You rich people eat the garbage parts of the animal!
There is a Futurama quote apropriate to any discussion you could possibly have. But on a more serious note, I would like to live in a society free of any form of currency. Where everyone produces something, everything is free, but everybody takes in moderation, as not to hoard posessions to themselves or exhaust supplies. But even more ideally is a situation described in lyrical form. "Imagine no posessions. I wonder if you can. No need for greed, or hunger; a brotherhood of man."
The SamuraiX says...
The idea of a government is mostly ideals, in real life, it is pure lies and deceit. Anarchy is the only viable democracy.
I would have liked to live in that age, but with the state of the world as it is today, anarchy cannot work. We exist on too large a scale; the moment anarchy were introduced, massive corporations would hire personal armies and begin to claim land, force slave labor of the inhabitants and turn the countries they are a part of into eternal battlefields for money and power. The only thing keeping corporations from unleashing their limitless voracity for power is the legal system of the governments they exist under, and as of late, even legality isn't stopping them.
Then again, I suppose that is survival of the fittest at it's best. In the end, the moral will always lose to the immoral.
The Arwon says...
You mean like in Somalia?
Gee, what a sentiment. "We all seem to enjoy criticising our governments but life in Somalia shows the alternative is far worse, as Hobbes wrote 350 years ago." Indeed; someone else's life sucks because they live in the third world with warlords over their heads, therefore, Joe British has no right to critisize his government or the way they work. Blair 1, World 0. The article is misleading at best; Somalia is a poor and desperate nation, regardless of the abscense or presence of a government, and most civilized nations haven't the free schooling or hospital service the quoted Somali so pines for; it's paid for in taxes, and in America, medical care must be directly paid for. I hate to be the one to say it, but only the weak cry for some faceless force to come rescue them, be it government or higher power. X knows what I'm talking about. |
Arwon
Posts: 483/506 |
You mean like in Somalia? |
SamuraiX
Posts: 47/140 |
The idea of a government is mostly ideals, in real life, it is pure lies and deceit. Anarchy is the only viable democracy. |
Arwon
Posts: 482/506 |
Originally posted by Wurl 4.0
Originally posted by Arwon
You don't necessarily need much in the way of restrictions on the market to construct a decent social welfare state, it's a false dichotomy. That's why we have the term Social Market Economy.
Yeah, but market economies often propel poverty and inequality.
Vote what you want and feel free to elaborate as Arwon did.
So West Germany, was it a "socialist" or a "capitalist" democracy? The idea that it's either/or seems utterly absurd. |
Danielle
Posts: 2511/3359 |
Originally posted by Kefka
Social democracy clearly works. Or do I need to show you how it clearly works?
Seconded. I'd say capitalist but.. that seems to be going down the tubes as of late.  |
Kefka
Posts: 3368/3392 |
Social democracy clearly works. Or do I need to show you how it clearly works? |
Wurl 4.0
Posts: 37/244 |
Originally posted by Arwon
You don't necessarily need much in the way of restrictions on the market to construct a decent social welfare state, it's a false dichotomy. That's why we have the term Social Market Economy.
Yeah, but market economies often propel poverty and inequality.
Vote what you want and feel free to elaborate as Arwon did. |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. |
|
