Provocative question: Is there a system of government better than a democracy?

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Vespasian
And if there isn't, how would you change the current democratic system to make it better?

What are the problems with democracy that you'd like to address?

 

[Stiler]

You're obviously confused. Utopianism has nothing to do with that quote nor government at all. If anything utopianism is the complete absense of government.

Uh i meant Utopian as in "perfect, the best, etc" maybe you should see the defintion of it -

"a. Excellent or ideal but impracticable; visionary: "a utopian scheme for equalizing wealth." b. Proposing impracticably ideal schemes."

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: Stiler

You're obviously confused. Utopianism has nothing to do with that quote nor government at all. If anything utopianism is the complete absense of government.

Uh i meant Utopian as in "perfect, the best, etc" maybe you should see the defintion of it -

"a. Excellent or ideal but impracticable; visionary: "a utopian scheme for equalizing wealth." b. Proposing impracticably ideal schemes."

so what does that have anything to do with people being told what to do?

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Vespasian
And if there isn't, how would you change the current democratic system to make it better?

What are the problems with democracy that you'd like to address?

I'm not sure. I guess I want to feel like I have a little more power.

 

[yellowperil]

Yes, communism has failed in the 20th century. In his economic/social theory, Marx predicted that the level of inequality would continue to increase with the rise of industrialization. What he did not foresee is the creation of a middle class and the general decline in inequality. In his day most people lived off the work of their own hands. Now with machines, a much smaller % is working in industry, manfacturing, agriculture, etc. and many more people are working in white-collar jobs. His point was valid at the time, and in some respects still applies to third world countries where the level of inequality is much higher in first world countries.

Just because communism failed doesn't mean it is a completely bankrupt ideology. Obviously in the U.S. we share some values of socialism, such as equality of opportunity and democracy. These values coexist and sometimes compete with our other values of individualism. Just as a government based solely on equality (such as communism) is unworkable, so is a government based solely on individualism. We have to strike a balance.

 

[Stiler]

so what does that have anything to do with people being told what to do?

umm seriously are you all like on the dum dum drugs or something? j/king

I'm saying there will never be a Perfect Government simply because people don't like being told what to do.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
The answer to the question depends on what you mean by best


Rome was not a democracy, but was highly successful.

The only reason Rome was successful was because of the slave workes. Without them.... nada.

 

[tcsenter]

In his economic/social theory, Marx predicted that the level of inequality would continue to increase with the rise of industrialization. What he did not foresee is the creation of a middle class and the general decline in inequality.

lol! Marx was born and raised in a middle class family. What you mean is that Marx did not foresee the fluidity with which people born into poverty would come to move between the classes as they can today.

In Marx's day, much as was true throughout most of Europe and still is to this day, a person pretty much stayed in whatever class they were born into. If you were born poor, you stayed poor until you died, as did your children, grandchildren, etc. There was some fluidity between the classes, but it was only one way - downward. Rich folks could be disenfranchisted, but the poor never became rich.

It was the exclusive barriers to these middle and upper classes that Marx really despised, such as titles of nobility, pedigree and lineage, etc. I give Marx credit for rightly despising the systems of nobility, vassalage, homage, servitude, and outright slavery that were the rule of his time.

Marx was undoubtedly well-intention, but then the road to hell is paved....

 

[nihil]

Originally posted by: Stiler

so what does that have anything to do with people being told what to do?

umm seriously are you all like on the dum dum drugs or something? j/king

I'm saying there will never be a Perfect Government simply because people don't like being told what to do.

I understand the definition of utopian. But utopian anarchism is completely different. There is no gov't, thus, no one can tell you what to do. But keep in mind, you are expected to do the right thing as a human, even in an absence of government.

 

[joohang]

Define "better".

All around perfect?
Economically stronger?
Diplomatically more stable?
Socially more stable?

 

[Howard]

Just wait until humans evolve.

 

[Howard]

Pure democracy - ever hear about Bread and Circuses?

 

[yellowperil]

tcsenter-

I did not mean to say there were no middle class folks during Marx's time. What I meant by 'creation of the middle class' (a bad phrasing on my part) was the closing disparity between the rich and the poor. (I should add, although the disparity in wealth is growing between the rich and the rest of us, all classes have enjoyed an increase in living standards, even if not equally). In Marx's time it was really about the haves and the have-nots. Now, at least in the US and other industrialized nations, we have a lot of (for lack of a better term) have-somes. But you are correct about the rigidity of class structure in Marx's day. The fluidity has increased whereas Marx predicted it would become more rigid. The trend you described in Europe is also true in the US, based on studies on wealth and occupational mobility. Most children grow up into the same social class as their parents, and when mobility occurs it is most often inter-generational rather than intra-generational, and occurs in small increments (in other words, rags-to-riches is rare).

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Yucky
Just wait until humans evolve.

But what are we going to evolve into? There is no survival of the fittest, and we help people with genetic deformities to survive and breed. Not only that, but the smartest and most talented are, on average having fewer kids than those who produce little.

 

[nihil]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: Yucky
Just wait until humans evolve.

But what are we going to evolve into? There is no survival of the fittest, and we help people with genetic deformities to survive and breed. Not only that, but the smartest and most talented are, on average having fewer kids than those who produce little.

This is one thing that i will easily agree with you on. Human evolution will be much more difficult if we keep "defects" alive and encourage them to breed. The only evolution that is easily possible is personal evolution. If everyone just took a step back to examine everything, the world might be a completely different place.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: nihil

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: Yucky
Just wait until humans evolve.

But what are we going to evolve into? There is no survival of the fittest, and we help people with genetic deformities to survive and breed. Not only that, but the smartest and most talented are, on average having fewer kids than those who produce little.

This is one thing that i will easily agree with you on. Human evolution will be much more difficult if we keep "defects" alive and encourage them to breed. The only evolution that is easily possible is personal evolution. If everyone just took a step back to examine everything, the world might be a completely different place.

I've done this and embraced moderate libertarianism as a political and moral ideal. Did you come to the same conclusion?

People will always see things differently. No matter how much you make them step back and examine things

 

[nihil]

I've done this and embraced moderate libertarianism as a political and moral ideal. Did you come to the same conclusion?

People will always see things differently. No matter how much you make them step back and examine things

Yeah. I would consider myself more of a libertarian than anything else. As far as re-evaluating the world and the condition it is in now. All i mean by that is all this stupid BS fighting over religion is both counterproductive and completely rediculous. This has been going on for thousands of years now. I think it's time that all these religious extremists realize that all religion does is start wars, even if that is not it's intention.

 

[bizmark]

I think that the same good outcomes can come about through different methods of government. Our system would have remained pretty perfect, I think, if the U.S. hadn't become a continent-spanning polyglot nation. There's just too many diverse interests at stake for democracy to work well now, and everybody's too separated from each other to feel a good connection. Technology can do something to bridge the gaps, but I think that the result is still largely a fake, feel-good illusion of unity.

And I'm all for some sort of state-run program of eugenics. It doesn't have to be evil or overdone. Just something to get us on the right track again. As I see it, all significant human evolution stopped a few thousand years ago (with the agricultural revolution). That's simply absurd IMO. I would suggest, as a starting point, subsidies for women in the top 25% of the IQ range to have children instead of working. Yes, yes, I know, IQ isn't everything, blah blah blah. But it's got to be better than the positively dysgenic system we've got going now, which is actively dragging the human race downward, possibly never to rise again.

We've got to stop feeling uncomfortable when talking about these things, because the future of humanity is quite literally at stake.

 

[Bignate603]

Communism in it's purist form does not require us to lose our individuality. But the problem is, one bad apple can ruin the bunch. For large scale communism the try to keep people from taking advantage of the system and they're oppressive. Small scale communism has always worked. Alot of the colonies in the Americas started with communistic organization. I think it's much easier to pull off communism with a smaller group of people, where most people know each other, and working towards a common goal.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Bignate603
Communism in it's purist form does not require us to lose our individuality. But the problem is, one bad apple can ruin the bunch. For large scale communism the try to keep people from taking advantage of the system and they're oppressive. Small scale communism has always worked. Alot of the colonies in the Americas started with communistic organization. I think it's much easier to pull off communism with a smaller group of people, where most people know each other, and working towards a common goal.

Exactly. Hense my post.

nik

 

[Phunktion]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Vespasian

Communism is based on the flawed idea that all work has equal value. This is not true, a doctor contributes more to society than a janitor. Both are valuable jobs to be sure, but a doctor's job saves lives and requires very special training and a very smart person to do a good job. Communism, since it doesn't allow classes, would give just as much reward to a doctor as to a janitor. This would remove a lot of incentive to be a doctor. Our society would fall apart. Even if a true communism was created, it would still have the class problem. Peoples' incentive to work hard is to become members of the upper class, at least in most cases.

Truth be told though its like comparing a garbage man to a dentist.. you can't say one's more important than another.. would you want to be responsible for other people's trash!? Hell no.. or at least not if you could do otherwise.. it would be best to pay the garbage men more than the dentist based in educational dollars (deemed merely for education) encouraging them to give their kids a better education than they had, and also not allowing their children to go into the same profession again, encouraging growth of the unskilled populace into more intellectually demanding careers.. maybe becoming robotics engineers to rid the world of the need for janitors and garbage men increasing the need for technicians and electronic assembly workers to make those janitorial and garbage disposal robots.. LOL.. get a nerds point of view

 

[Nefrodite]

ofcourse, where someone wise makes all the decisions. namely me