Your Government

[Sodfather]

Governments are really crazy these days. Democracy is quite different today from what the Greeks intended, I'm sure, and all attempts at a utopia spiral down into a big ball of fascim. :)

I'll start with Communism...

Sure it looks great on paper, but time has proved that it turns into one big mess in practice. And even if it did work, who would willingly live under Communistic rule? The monotony of everyone being the same, brainwashed individual would be unbearable, don't you think? Before you go ahead and choose Communism, I strongly recommend you go ahead and read George Orwell's vision of a Communist world in the book 1984. Quite scary.

Now for democracy...Not much to be said. Until every public school can provide Harvard-quality courses, I don't think democracy will work exactly as planned. The whole thing is basically about the people being educated enough to make sound choices, as opposed to today's America where the level of education is way below where it should be resulting in authority figures trampling all over civil rights and the people and just about everything democratic. You need people that can withstand a plane crashing into a building without throwing every last one of their rights out of the window just so they can be "safe."

Dictatorship...This is my choice, and also the choice of a little someone you might know - Socrates. The flaw in this government is that the dictator has to be the right guy, someone capable of ruling without abusing the power. That's virtually impossible...Often the power is just passed down to offspring and somewhat of an oligarchy can begin to form. Perhaps if this "right guy" was in charge from day one, he'd be able to pick another "right guy" to take his place and that person would be able to choose yet another "right guy" to rule and so on and so forth.

I won't mention the other forms of government because I'm too tired, but my second choice is probably a tie between the Democracy/Communism compromise and just Democracy. The New Deal (American movement during the Great Depression) was very successful, but we'll never know if it would hve worked in the long run because it has been gradually torn apart by subsequent administrations.

Note: Go easy on all the mistakes I've made in this post, I'm only posting it to give you guys something else to arg...I mean "debate" about. Have fun. :)

[Nicole]

I definitely say Democracy. But I do strongly oppose throwing our hard-won freedoms out the window for a teaspoon of temporary safety.

Communism- it's never worked and it never will.

Dictatorship- there is no one man out there who can be trusted. I mean, whoever you trust I sure as hell won't trust and vice versa.

Great topic and I'm interested in everyone else's views...

[UpInMahGrill]

Originally posted by Nicole@Sep 1 2003, 07:38 PM I definitely say Democracy. But I do strongly oppose throwing our hard-won freedoms out the window for a teaspoon of temporary safety. Communism- it's never worked and it never will. Dictatorship- there is no one man out there who can be trusted. I mean, whoever you trust I sure as hell won't trust and vice versa. Great topic and I'm interested in everyone else's views...

i agree

[Dislogic]

well if your living in the US i would not be fooled into thinking we are in a democracy if i were you... the better term for our form of government is a republic and there is a difference. Now go look it up!

sorry just didnt feel like telling you all the difference but i suppose most of you understand what i am saying and know the difference between a republic and a democracy.

anyway i will vote other because the the best type of government has not yet been created however if i have to choose something here other then other it would have to be a democracy.

edit: oops didnt see that the poll title was "currently" so i voted democracy instead.

[G. Adams]

Gah, do I have to explain this all again?

Communism is democracy. Nobody can claim it hasn't worked because it hasn't been tried. Well, maybe on communes and Amish villages, but not on a real level.

1984 is not a book against Communism it is a book against totalitarianism. Orwell himself was a democratic socialist, he went to Spain to fight against Franco's falangists and support the socialists there. He called himself a democratic socialist in order to differentiate himself from the tyranny that had came about in Russia under the people claiming to be communists, but his views are those of most modern communists. Note the books statements regarding the hope of Oceania lying in the prole's, which is a fundamental core of communist belief.

As Socrates never wrote anything himself, I wouldn't claim anything as his. I think your refering to Plato's writing in the Republic. Plato's 'ideal' society rests upon the belief that the workers are controlled entirely by appetites, the military by emotion and the philosopher 'kings' by logic. As we know, no person is entirely ruled by any of these. Anyone who was fully ruled by any of the three characteristics would be unfit to be ruler as they would not be fully human.

I wouldn't argue that all ideal aiming societies fall to fascism is true either. They may turn to the far right, as those in power want to stay there and turn reactionary, but thats not fascism. Its like communism and anarchism are both hard left, but they are not the same. Fascism gains support when the imperial age collapses, and the bourgois see the proleteriat turn to communism. They turn to fascism in the hope of retaining power, and some proles go fascist, conned by ideas of nationalism.

The New Deal deal isn't a compromise between Democracy and Communism, its a slight compromise of Capitalism to Communism, know as social democracy. And its there in all its glory in Sweden and Norway.

I think you are mistaking Capitalism from Democracy. Capitalism is an economic concept. Democracy is a political concept. The two do not go hand in hand, as capitalism allows power to be concentrated in minorities in the form of money, which corrupts democracy. Democracy is only compatible with communism, where there is no concetration of economic power in any body, thus preventing corruption.

[Nicole]

Well thank you to the higher power here for the news flash. Are you always quite so arrogant? :)

And I do believe the USA is a democracy, whatever your interpretations may be.

[Sodfather]

Originally posted by G. Adams@Sep 1 2003, 08:06 PM The New Deal deal isn't a compromise between Democracy and Communism, its a slight compromise of Capitalism to Communism, know as social democracy. And its there in all its glory in Sweden and Norway. I think you are mistaking Capitalism from Democracy. Capitalism is an economic concept. Democracy is a political concept. The two do not go hand in hand, as capitalism allows power to be concentrated in minorities in the form of money, which corrupts democracy. Democracy is only compatible with communism, where there is no concetration of economic power in any body, thus preventing corruption.

Exactly. I really apologize for that mistake, I meant to say capitalism.

P.S. Nice post G., very informative.

[G. Adams]

I do my best. Sobriety makes all the difference in my posts.

[Sodfather]

Wow, I posted this in the wrong category. It should have been Temp. Gov, Economics and News but the long titles threw me off. :(

:yells for Sean to move the thread:

If this thread disappears it'll most likely be in the Temp. Gov, Economics and News vategory. Sorry.

Edit: Nevermind, this can be considered philosophy.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Guess I am the only one to vote for oligarchy, but most do not know what it means. :) Of course, it is a real big open catagory...

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

I see that Adams is still suffering under the delusion that the government is capable of giving power back to the people after taking it all...

[fedfem]

I chose Democracy. I agree with dislogic--the US is a Republic which is a representative democracy. I do not think Communism or true Democracy would work in this country due to the size of the population. What is happening now in the US is nothing new and sooner or later it will balance out as it has for the last 200 years. The big difference is-this time the US has been too arrogant to the rest of the world. As another poster stated elsewhere, without a war somewhere our economy would dive. The current Government is turning us from an Open Society to a closed one and that is their biggest mistake and was the mistake of countries that tried to implement Communism.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

FedFem
I think you are overexaggerating the situation...

oops, I just clicked "Null Vote"

NO ANARCHY??? i guess that belongs in "other".

so theres my vote.

just kidding.

I've never known anything except for a democracy, so I guess that's where my vote lies.

about dictatorship- you cant put all of your trust in one man, you see how that turned out in Cuba, etc...

[fedfem]

What point am I over-exagerating?

[Sodfather]

I failed to realize that a despotism and anarchy are two completely different things; a despotism would be a dictatorship but with a tyrannical ruler like...Saddam Hussein!

Sorry bout that.

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@Sep 1 2003, 09:58 PM I see that Adams is still suffering under the delusion that the government is capable of giving power back to the people after taking it all...

I quite expect a government to turn into its typical self preserving ways once it is settled. Which is why I would not want that government to control a military, and for the population to be armed. Now in what way can government keep power against the peoples will?

[fedfem]

Originally posted by Gregory@Sep 1 2003, 10:38 PM about dictatorship- you cant put all of your trust in one man, you see how that turned out in Cuba, etc...

Yes, but they got Batista out and look where they are now in comparison.

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/cuba_s...statistics.html

[dalin]

Before one can argue what the best form of government would be, the real purpose/role of government should first be established. It exists to establish order. In order for that to happen, those under the government must forfeit some rights, otherwise you'd have chaos, and the society wouldn't progress. The level of freedom one must give up, is thus one of the major differences among all those forms of government mentioned.

But what should determine that? The priorities of the people. Is the good of the community important enough to make sacrifices for it? Is personal well being most important? Obviously it's impossible for everyone under the same government to agree on the form and role it should take. However if the majority is satisfied, you have a generally better functioning society. But this idea doesn't necessarily lend itself to democracy. A socialistic society would work as well as a democracy in such a case.

However all this supposes ideal situations. Idyllic democracy wouldn't work unless everyone was well-educated. That's why the U.S. government has controls (e.g. the electoral college, etc.). On the same token, pure communism would only work if each party performed its function properly (leaders not becoming corrupt, lol)

[dalin]

Originally posted by fedfem+Sep 2 2003, 12:11 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (fedfem @ Sep 2 2003, 12:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Gregory@Sep 1 2003, 10:38 PM about dictatorship- you cant put all of your trust in one man, you see how that turned out in Cuba, etc...

Yes, but they got Batista out and look where they are now in comparison.

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/cuba_s...statistics.html [/b][/quote]
That's some interesting information on the unicef website. While his coming to power has brought about positive changes, you cant ignore some of the human rights issues going on in Cuba. This goes back to the question of how much control you think a government should have?