Inter.spem.et.metum Posted October 24, 2007 Report Share Posted October 24, 2007 I would like to know what political systems you all prefer, and what values those political preferences uphold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted October 24, 2007 Report Share Posted October 24, 2007 Representative Democracy. Fairness, efficiency, effectiveness, constructive conflict, creative destruction, growth, and social evolution. Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others, :PBuffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inter.spem.et.metum Posted October 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2007 Thank you for the post, but you know I have to argue. Democracy isn't the most fair, efficient, or effective. Conflict is only constructive for some, and destruction is only as good as what it creates. I agree democracy promotes growth and social evolution. But if truly fosters growth and social evolution, it won't remain a representative democracy for very long. But I dig your last line! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted October 24, 2007 Report Share Posted October 24, 2007 Thank you for the post, but you know I have to argue.That's what we're here for! ;)Democracy isn't the most fair, efficient, or effective. Conflict is only constructive for some, and destruction is only as good as what it creates....uh, compared to what?But I dig your last line!Good! You got my point then! Its got Buffy's Asterisk on it, so you should look it up!I agree democracy promotes growth and social evolution. But if truly fosters growth and social evolution, it won't remain a representative democracy for very long.Why not? The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter, :PBuffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inter.spem.et.metum Posted October 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 Fairness, efficiency, and effectiveness depend on what you value. It is easy to say that you want these things, but what parts of society do you think should be fair; efficient; effective? I can find evidence that the entire political spectrum offers these aspects, just in different areas of life. As for social growth and social evolution, not all political affiliations support them, but some do. So again, what areas of society does a representative democracy foster fairness, efficiency, and effectiveness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaurieAG Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 I would like to know what political systems you all prefer, and what values those political preferences uphold. Hi Inter, While I prefer a real representative democracy, not a constitutional monarchy run as a politicians republic (as we have in Australia), there are other options that will become more appealing as global warming takes hold. It depends on what we really value, wealth and material assets, or somewhere bearable to live in the future. Modern values and political preferences will become more important as recent research has revealed that Cuba is the only environmentally sustainable political economy on this planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 Modern values and political preferences will become more important as recent research has revealed that Cuba is the only environmentally sustainable political economy on this planet. That's surprising.What makes it so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inter.spem.et.metum Posted October 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 I agree. Which do you value more; Economy or Ecology? The answer is easy for me.:P:daydreaming:;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaurieAG Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 That's surprising.What makes it so? Hi Orb, 'global warming' and its causes means that a sustainable future will be more like Cuba is today than the rest of the world as it exists now, for those who will live in the future anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 Fairness, efficiency, and effectiveness depend on what you value. It is easy to say that you want these things, but what parts of society do you think should be fair; efficient; effective? In a democracy, what *I personally* think is balanced against what everyone else thinks too. There's no Politburo or Council of Imams who get to decide what's good for the rest of us: we can throw the bums out if we want! I can find evidence that the entire political spectrum offers these aspects, just in different areas of life.It *is* a matter of opinion what these things are, but *by definition* Communist, Theocratic and most other forms of government give an oligarchy total control over what that definition is.So again, what areas of society does a representative democracy foster fairness, efficiency, and effectiveness?Whatever "we the people" decide it should be! Sounds like you're saying "they're all just as bad as any other" which is pretty cynical, and is again, the whole point of my first post above: you can find fault with Democracy, but you can find a lot more with the others! So which one *would* you prefer to live under? We have some 7155 and its been pretty well supported, although there's not a lot of historical data to recommend it! :P We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall hang separately, ;)Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inter.spem.et.metum Posted October 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 I personally think socialism is the best route. I understand a persons desire to be able to make decisions for themselves. But just as we make decisions for our children because they are ignorant of what is good for them, I believe the masses are not realistic with what truly matters. I value life, peace, and the advancement of the human species. As I see it, democracy allows for too much freedom. It gives people the opportunity to not only be apathetic to themselves, but also to other people. I can see this aspect being apparent in humans in general, but I believe a society that instills these values early is more likely to foster positive results. Also, generally, a democracy is capitalistic, which creates competition and conflict rather than unification. It also breeds opportunism which is detrimental to altruism. I do not want to take away your right of choice, I want you to choose to care. That said, realistically I am a bit of an anarchist. I love this quote: If human beings are fundamentally good, no government is necessary; if they are fundamentally bad, any government, being composed of human beings, would be bad also. -Fred Woodworth But I try to be a little more optimistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inter.spem.et.metum Posted October 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 Also, what if we the people, as a large majority, wanted to kill off a paticular portion of the population for seemingly logical reasons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 Also, what if we the people, as a large majority, wanted to kill off a paticular portion of the population for seemingly logical reasons?That's why Representative as opposed to Direct Democracy. Some of the sentiments you express in the previous post are genuine concerns, and there's a need for "professional cooler heads" the only problem with other structures is that there's no feedback to keep the pro's honest! I also argue that "socialism" has never really been practiced: Countries that have called themselves Socialist are really Communist "Dictatorships of the Proletariat" with "Socialism" being a far off goal once we get rid of all the Bourgeoisie Kulaks via generational "re-education." In the meantime it just becomes a regular old Oligarchy. Countries that are pejoratively called Socialist (like our rightwingnuts here call Norway), are all really Representative Democracies whose participants simply care a bit more about the well being of their fellow man than the "I-got-mine-you-get-yours-yourself" crowd over here. Whenever I hear abstract descriptions of either Socialism or Anarchism, they sound awfully alike, with lots of open questions about how it would actually *work* without some mechanisms bolted on the side that sound an awful lot like....Democracy! :phones: Deviled political eggs,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaurieAG Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 I also argue that "socialism" has never really been practiced: Countries that have called themselves Socialist are really Communist "Dictatorships of the Proletariat" with "Socialism" being a far off goal once we get rid of all the Bourgeoisie Kulaks via generational "re-education." In the meantime it just becomes a regular old Oligarchy. Countries that are pejoratively called Socialist (like our rightwingnuts here call Norway), are all really Representative Democracies whose participants simply care a bit more about the well being of their fellow man than the "I-got-mine-you-get-yours-yourself" crowd over here. Hi Buffy, You forgot about Australia and in particular Queenslands free public hospital system, government subsidised fuel rebate, social security, pensions, public housing etc. After WWII our state government bought up all of the private electricity generators so that they wouldn't fall into the clutches of the fascists (who look like they are on the verge of triumph). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 You forgot about Australia and in particular Queenslands free public hospital system, government subsidised fuel rebate, social security, pensions, public housing etc. After WWII our state government bought up all of the private electricity generators so that they wouldn't fall into the clutches of the fascists (who look like they are on the verge of triumph).I make the argument--vehemently opposed by the right-wing in the US--that these things are "social welfare programs" and not an example of a "socialist political structure." A "political structure" defines who is in charge and how decisions of governance are made, and in fact you can have a socialist political structure under which there are *no* social welfare programs! :eek: The function of socialism is to raise suffering to a higher level, :phones: (and you really need to look up who said that to get the drift!)Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inter.spem.et.metum Posted November 6, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2007 Why shouldn't we all suffer alike? What makes me more important than another person? If there is a way to weigh life, does capitalism have the best method for doing so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted November 6, 2007 Report Share Posted November 6, 2007 IMO, no human life is more or less important than another.However, life also is not fair. Why should the tornado wipe out my life, yet leave my neighbor untouched? Life simply isn't fair.There is also something to be said for people that work hard or take risks being able to enjoy the fruits of their labors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.