Communism as it's been configured in the past hasn't worked for some of the reasons you mentioned. There is no reason another incarnation couldn't adopt the necessary mechanisms from other philosophies. In capitalism you have private rich assholes controlling the economy. In communism you just have government assholes controlling the economy. In either case, capital is doled out based on where just a few people think it ought to go.
There is no reason that I can think of where the people could control the means of production AND use that control in classic capitalistic ways.
I'd be all for communism if someone could show me a model that would work. But as yet, no-one has.
The main problem is that communism -by it's very nature- suppresses private sector competition (having no private sector) and prohibits speculative investments. You simply can't have either of those two things in a communist system.
Now, socialist programs in a capitalist economy are something I support. I would love to see a socialism tax implemented on a sliding scale, whereby the richest 50% pays a tax whos rate is proprtional to their income, and is redistributed to the poorest 50%, in a manner which is inversely proportional to their income and based on need, excepting the non-disabled unemployed who would get a fixed amount of unemployment for a fixed period of time, after which they would be on their own.
For instance, a person who makes $300,000 a year might pay a 1% socialism tax, while a person who makes $300,000,000 a year would pay 15%. A person who makes $45,000 a year and has 1 child might receive an additional $2,000 a year from this program, while a person who makes $12,000 and has 3 children and no spouse would receive $20,000 a year.
The problem with this is that it eliminates part of the impetus to get an education, and might result in a "dumbing down" of the populace. However, this remains to be seen. There are certain variations of this model that would still provide quite an impetus to get a good education and a good career.
QUOTE
Do family practice doctors in this country really need to average $300,000 a year take home? Do we really like a world where some college grad makes $500,000 a year sitting back in some big banks trading house late at night exchanging millions of dollars for yuan and then to lire' and back to dollars making his bank 10,000 or 100,000 in the process?
Yes, to the doctors. Look at the quality of American medical care in relation to medical care from more socialist states, such as Canada. Look at the massive amounts of funding that go into the development of new medical technologies; money put up by large medical research firms who in turn pass on their costs to the doctors and patients who buy their drugs and equipment. The more capital a doctor has, the more likely he is to buy a new piece of equipment or to start using a new drug in his practice that will improve the quality of life of his patients.
As for the others, what's to stop anyone from pursuing a degree in economics or an MBA and making that money for themselves? Sure, it might not be what they want to do, but then that simply reinforces our personal freedoms: We have the right to sacrifice our desired careers for the sake of more money, or to sacrifice more money for the sake of our desired career, or even to sacrifice both for the sake of a lack of responsibility.
Besides which, can you really say that it's fair to see a high school drop-out working at Burger King who makes the same money as a SWAT team officer, a fireman or a medical researcher?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do family practice doctors in this country really need to average $300,000 a year take home? Do we really like a world where some college grad makes $500,000 a year sitting back in some big banks trading house late at night exchanging millions of dollars for yuan and then to lire' and back to dollars making his bank 10,000 or 100,000 in the process? |
Yes, to the doctors. Look at the quality of American medical care in relation to medical care from more socialist states, such as Canada. Look at the massive amounts of funding that go into the development of new medical technologies; money put up by large medical research firms who in turn pass on their costs to the doctors and patients who buy their drugs and equipment. The more capital a doctor has, the more likely he is to buy a new piece of equipment or to start using a new drug in his practice that will improve the quality of life of his patients.
As for the others, what's to stop anyone from pursuing a degree in economics or an MBA and making that money for themselves? Sure, it might not be what they want to do, but then that simply reinforces our personal freedoms: We have the right to sacrifice our desired careers for the sake of more money, or to sacrifice more money for the sake of our desired career, or even to sacrifice both for the sake of a lack of responsibility.
Besides which, can you really say that it's fair to see a high school drop-out working at Burger King who makes the same money as a SWAT team officer, a fireman or a medical researcher?
Until we rid ourselves of despicable sleaze-bag situations like that (an so many others) then we can't progress all people.
I don't ever see that happening. No matter what economic system we have, those in power will always be those most desirous of power, and there will always be greed involved in that.
QUOTE
Instead, we'll just be progressing the rich assholes. *** the rich assholes. They ALL got rich on someone else's back. It's time to take it back from them.
Steve Jobs got rich off of someone else's back? What about Sam Walton? What about Ted Waitt? All of them became rich because of businesses they founded and ran, not off of investing other people's money.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Instead, we'll just be progressing the rich assholes. *** the rich assholes. They ALL got rich on someone else's back. It's time to take it back from them. |
Steve Jobs got rich off of someone else's back? What about Sam Walton? What about Ted Waitt? All of them became rich because of businesses they founded and ran, not off of investing other people's money.
The people will rise up one day in the most capitalistic country on this planet. It will be bloody and ugly too.
I doubt it. The American psyche still reacts negatively to the word "communism", let alone to the concept. I'd wager that you will see the revolution occur on those 5 remaining bastions of communism, provided those countries do not continue this trend of "capitalization" of their economies.
flyingbuttressman
14th July 2009 - 12:43 AM
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jul 13 2009, 06:53 PM)
In capitalism you are free to negotiate your pay with your employer and even have the chance to bypass your employer and work for yourself and maybe even give others the opportunity to work for you.
I prefer freedom, good luck trying to achieve economic and social bliss.
So, in your capitalist society would everyone be paid the same? Plumbers? Janitors? Laborers? CEOs? Fat Chance.
Capitalism rewards the rich and punishes the poor. Those who have get more; those who have not lose what they have.
MjolnirPants,
I agree
MjolnirPants
14th July 2009 - 12:49 AM
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 13 2009, 07:43 PM)
So, in your capitalist society would everyone be paid the same? Plumbers? Janitors? Laborers? CEOs? Fat Chance.
Capitalism rewards the rich and punishes the poor. Those who have get more; those who have not lose what they have.
MjolnirPants,
I agree
Not quite. Capitalism tends to reward those adept at making money and punish those who are not adept, however there are exceptions. (The lottery, inheritances and other windfalls being three cases where capitalism does not punish those with poor money making skills.)
flyingbuttressman
14th July 2009 - 12:54 AM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 13 2009, 07:49 PM)
Not quite. Capitalism
tends to reward those adept at making money and punish those who are not adept, however there are exceptions. (The lottery, inheritances and other windfalls being three cases where capitalism does not punish those with poor money making skills.)
I agree for the most part, but the problem is that the largest majority of people work production-level jobs. Capitalism assumes that the majority of people are bad at making money. There is no utopia in Capitalism.
On a side note, Bioshock is an excellent presentation of Capitalism gone awry.
MjolnirPants
14th July 2009 - 01:09 AM
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 13 2009, 07:54 PM)
I agree for the most part, but the problem is that the largest majority of people work production-level jobs. Capitalism assumes that the majority of people are bad at making money.
I disagree that there's any assumption there. Economic models don't pursue goals based on individuals, but on societies as a whole. If you have a society of 100 people in which 1 makes $100,000,000, 9 make $100,000, 80 make $10,000 and 10 make $1,000, then your economy is many times larger than one in which 100 people each make $100,000.
QUOTE
There is no utopia in Capitalism.
Utopia?
flyingbuttressman
14th July 2009 - 01:19 AM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 13 2009, 08:09 PM)
I disagree that there's any assumption there. Economic models don't pursue goals based on individuals, but on societies as a whole. If you have a society of 100 people in which 1 makes $100,000,000, 9 make $100,000, 80 make $10,000 and 10 make $1,000, then your economy is many times larger than one in which 100 people each make $100,000.
I think I agree that it is pointless to try to equalize everyone and still hope for growth, but I think that there should be a bare minimum of services that can allow every citizen the right to health care, housing and food. I agree that ambition and hard work should be rewarded, but those who are unable or unfit should not 'fall through the cracks'.
I think we would largely agree on individual policies, but I think our methods of getting there would be different.
QUOTE
lol, great post.
pnelson419
14th July 2009 - 01:26 AM
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 13 2009, 08:43 PM)
So, in your capitalist society would everyone be paid the same? Plumbers? Janitors? Laborers? CEOs? Fat Chance.
Capitalism rewards the rich and punishes the poor. Those who have get more; those who have not lose what they have.
MjolnirPants,
I agree
I think MjolnirPants has explained this better than I could.
I would like to ask though. If everyone is paid the same what would be the incentive to do better? And would you prefer some government bureaucrat determine what job you will be doing the rest of your life?
MjolnirPants
14th July 2009 - 01:31 AM
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 13 2009, 08:19 PM)
I think I agree that it is pointless to try to equalize everyone and still hope for growth, but I think that there should be a bare minimum of services that can allow every citizen the right to health care, housing and food. I agree that ambition and hard work should be rewarded, but those who are unable or unfit should not 'fall through the cracks'.
I think we would largely agree on individual policies, but I think our methods of getting there would be different.
I'm with you completely on this. This is why I support socialist programs in a capitalist economy. The stronger the economy is thanks to capitalism, the more money there is to support the underprivileged with socialist programs.
QUOTE
lol, great post.
Thanks. It was something that's seemed obvious to me for some time, but very few people tend to think about, so I just had to blog about it.
nopEda
14th July 2009 - 01:43 AM
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 12 2009, 07:28 PM)
I saw this today, and I think it deserves some attention from you guys:
QUOTE
. . .
One view is that the problem is that scientists and science teachers are no good at explaining science
I asked a kid who was in high school what they were studying in science, and he said the elements. So I asked him when they had learned about the structure of an atom, and he said they wouldn't be learning that until the next year! So here they are trying to teach kids that there's a difference between hydrogen and helium, without the kids having any idea WHAT the difference is. How much more stupid could it be?
flyingbuttressman
14th July 2009 - 01:52 AM
QUOTE (nopEda+Jul 13 2009, 08:43 PM)
I asked a kid who was in high school what they were studying in science, and he said the elements. So I asked him when they had learned about the structure of an atom, and he said they wouldn't be learning that until the next year! So here they are trying to teach kids that there's a difference between hydrogen and helium, without the kids having any idea WHAT the difference is. How much more stupid could it be?
Uhh, it's called 'one thing at a time'. You need to learn how the elements are different before you learn why they are different.
uaafanblog
14th July 2009 - 01:55 AM
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jul 13 2009, 11:19 PM)
In capitalism every hard working soul controls the economy. The capital isn't doled out, it is earned.
What makes the economy go in today's world are the people who provide the "capital". Hard work doesn't go anywhere if there isn't some funding behind it. Those with the inability to access that "capital" are doomed forever to own their Mom and Pop Shop no matter how hard they work.
The "captial" is most certainly "doled" out ... done so in the hopes of generating the highest possible profit for the "doler".
uaafanblog
14th July 2009 - 02:01 AM
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jul 14 2009, 01:26 AM)
If everyone is paid the same what would be the incentive to do better? And would you prefer some government bureaucrat determine what job you will be doing the rest of your life?
We have an excellent example to answer your question. The Soviet Union was "communist" for basically a generation. Lets see what they accomplished with a bunch of people who had no incentive ...
They competed well with the capitalist USA in a long term space race ...
They built nukes with aplomb and did so with a safety record not much worse than the west ...
They historically were one of the top economic powers in the world ...
So people with no incentive can clearly perform at a high level. And that was in a shitty implementation of communism.
pnelson419
14th July 2009 - 02:14 AM
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Jul 13 2009, 09:55 PM)
What makes the economy go in today's world are the people who provide the "capital". Hard work doesn't go anywhere if there isn't some funding behind it. Those with the inability to access that "capital" are doomed forever to own their Mom and Pop Shop no matter how hard they work.
The "captial" is most certainly "doled" out ... done so in the hopes of generating the highest possible profit for the "doler".
And there needs to be those that have the capital that have a need or want that is fulfilled by another in exchange for a part of their capital which enables them to exchange part of their capital for their needs and wants supplied by others.
What is wrong with profit? Without it there is no incentive to engage in the job creating activities that keep a free market economy moving.
MjolnirPants
14th July 2009 - 02:30 AM
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Jul 13 2009, 09:01 PM)
We have an excellent example to answer your question. The Soviet Union was "communist" for basically a generation. Lets see what they accomplished with a bunch of people who had no incentive ...
They competed well with the capitalist USA in a long term space race ...
They built nukes with aplomb and did so with a safety record not much worse than the west ...
They historically were one of the top economic powers in the world ...
So people with no incentive can clearly perform at a high level. And that was in a shitty implementation of communism.
Let's also not forget what they suffered:
A horrible economy.
Rampant corruption.
Rampant political dissent.
Virtually no confidence in the government.
Rampant paranoia within the communist party.
Rampant human rights violations.
Eventual total collapse of the communist system.
In fact, the USSR is one of the shortest-lived nations to have ever existed (Dec. 28, 1922 - Dec. 8, 1991) at just under 69 years.
By all measures, it was a complete and abject failure. The fact that they poured money into their space and military programs doesn't change the fact that they had a crappy economy. If their economic model worked out as well in real life as it does on paper, we'd all be speaking Russian right now.
uaafanblog
14th July 2009 - 02:32 AM
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jul 14 2009, 02:14 AM)
And there needs to be those that have the capital that have a need or want that is fulfilled by another in exchange for a part of their capital which enables them to exchange part of their capital for their needs and wants supplied by others.
What is wrong with profit? Without it there is no incentive to engage in the job creating activities that keep a free market economy moving.
I'll veer off to Anthropology for a moment ...
One thing that Anthropologists noted when studying primitive societies (and even some Simian culutres) that there was a tendency toward egalitarianism as a commonality. The extent and nature of the specifics can be debated but that isn't the point. I think mankind's nature is one that allows us each to treat each other fairly. We reciprocate by nature.
Now to a good example from pop culuture (sort of) ...
There are a series of TV commercials for Ally Bank (which happens to be one of the banks started by the "stimulus/rescue/whatever spending thingy) which all end with the moral ... "even kids know it's wrong to hold out on somebody".
So my point is that by nature we ARE concerned with the welfare/treatment of others. Now to relate all that to your question. Profit begets greed. Greed is antithetical to our nature. Our history tells us that clearly, even our myths warn of greed.
In a documentary about being rich in america by the son of "Johnson & Johnson" (i don't know which Johnson) he noted that the one commonality that every rich person shared was a fear that they didn't have enough money.
I will grant you that an individual should have a right to some "profit" from his work. Not every transaction between two individuals is ever going to be completely egalitarian. But we are smart enough to structure our society so that transactions are more (rather than less) egalitarian.
Here's a link to the Ally Bank commercial ...
pnelson419
14th July 2009 - 02:33 AM
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Jul 13 2009, 10:01 PM)
We have an excellent example to answer your question. The Soviet Union was "communist" for basically a generation. Lets see what they accomplished with a bunch of people who had no incentive ...
They competed well with the capitalist USA in a long term space race ...
They built nukes with aplomb and did so with a safety record not much worse than the west ...
They historically were one of the top economic powers in the world ...
So people with no incentive can clearly perform at a high level. And that was in a shitty implementation of communism.
Seems I recall long lines for bread that always seemed in short supply.
And I do think the incentive to work was low.
It was an economic disaster and people were trying their best to leave. And to where? The USA
flyingbuttressman
14th July 2009 - 02:34 AM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 13 2009, 09:30 PM)
In fact, the USSR is one of the shortest-lived nations to have ever existed (Dec. 28, 1922 - Dec. 8, 1991) at just under 69 years.
Actually, I would cite Alexander's Macedonian Empire, Hitler's Third Reich, Napoleon's French Empire, hell, any French government as "the shortest-lived nations to ever exist".
MjolnirPants
14th July 2009 - 02:39 AM
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 13 2009, 09:34 PM)
Actually, I would cite Alexander's Macedonian Empire, Hitler's Third Reich, Napoleon's French Empire, hell, any French government as "the shortest-lived nations to ever exist".
Hehe, that's why I said "one of"...
And I don't think the Third Reich or the French states should count: They are all better described as examples of short-lived governments. But the Macedonian Empire certainly is higher on the list of short-lived nations than the USSR.
uaafanblog
14th July 2009 - 02:40 AM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 14 2009, 02:30 AM)
By all measures, it was a complete and abject failure.
That's why I said
QUOTE
And that was in a shitty implementation of communism.
MjolnirPants
14th July 2009 - 02:49 AM
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Jul 13 2009, 09:40 PM)
That's why I said
QUOTE
And that was in a shitty implementation of communism.
But you didn't say how it was shitty...
I have no ideological objection to the notion that the USSR failed due to it's method of implementing communism vs it's adoption of communism, but in numerous debates I've had with the political left, I've never once been given a solid description of precisely what went wrong with the USSR that placed the blame on it's method of implementing communism.
Alternately, what would be a viable method of implementing communism? No matter how you do it, you're eliminating private sector competition, small businesses and the stock market. Even the most stable and well implemented communism economy would be stagnant in comparison to a capitalist economy.
flyingbuttressman
14th July 2009 - 02:57 AM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 13 2009, 09:49 PM)
Alternately, what would be a viable method of implementing communism? No matter how you do it, you're eliminating private sector competition, small businesses and the stock market. Even the most stable and well implemented communism economy would be stagnant in comparison to a capitalist economy.
I would say that communism would be viable in a post-apocalyptic society, where there aren't enough people to devote time to things like technological innovation. Of course, it would have to be a decentralized government consisting of many independent communities.
As far as the USSR goes, I think it would have turned out better if education and democracy had been early goals, instead of consolidation of power.
MjolnirPants
14th July 2009 - 03:04 AM
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 13 2009, 09:57 PM)
I would say that communism would be viable in a post-apocalyptic society, where there aren't enough people to devote time to things like technological innovation. Of course, it would have to be a decentralized government consisting of many independent communities.
Not such a bad suggestion, but eventually the market would come to dominate industry, rather than survival pressures, at which point a capitalist system would work well.
One idea I had for a working implementation of communism would be a capitalist economy populated by communist clans. Each clan is free to engage in any private venture it wishes, but the proceeds of all ventures are distributed equally throughout the clan.
QUOTE
As far as the USSR goes, I think it would have turned out better if education and democracy had been early goals, instead of consolidation of power.
A good constitution would have done them a world of good, yes. But it wouldn't have solved their economic problems, which were the major contributing factor to it's downfall.
uaafanblog
14th July 2009 - 04:54 AM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 14 2009, 02:49 AM)
[/QUOTE]
But you didn't say how it was shitty...
I have no ideological objection to the notion that the USSR failed due to it's method of implementing communism vs it's adoption of communism, but in numerous debates I've had with the political left, I've never once been given a solid description of precisely what went wrong with the USSR that placed the blame on it's method of implementing communism.
Alternately, what would be a viable method of implementing communism? No matter how you do it, you're eliminating private sector competition, small businesses and the stock market. Even the most stable and well implemented communism economy would be stagnant in comparison to a capitalist economy.
It died as much from greed as anything else. In their case though it was the greed for power. The party elite in the Soviet Union were as corrupt and self-interested as any large political body that holds power. When that internal power wasn't enough those same elite turned to the west to satiate their greed with money.
I have an idea that isn't new which could be used in any large political structure. It has at it's core the ability for the average citizen to participate in important and valuable ways and limits the amount of power and/or influence that any one person could acquire. It is resilient against outside forces and is essentially egalitarian in it's implementation. Communism and democracy are not mutually exclusive terms.
In the most minimal description ... political representatives would be essentially random people ... Under the current U.S. system, you'd plug them in (as appropriate to their resume') to every level from city council to president. I'd estimate a pool of around 100,000,000 "qualified" (TBD) "Public Servants" from which about 1,000,000 or so would be selected to serve from 2 to 5 years at the needed level (selection would be lottery). Eligibility determinations would have to be defined as certain minimum intelligence is necessary for the varying levels.
Blah blah blah ... blah blah ... blah ...
Nihilist
14th July 2009 - 05:03 AM
QUOTE
You're describing a federal system, which is what we already have (albeit with 50 states rather than 12). It's obviously not a dumb idea, as it's success is demonstrated by the influence and power of the U.S..
Similar that’s true, however on a global scale (a sort of federal government for countries). Oh and they would only really be responsible for managing country to country laws, the countries them selves would still make all the other laws.
The sub division of the U.S. would be something else entirely; it would just be smaller countries. In my mind smaller countries equal more happy citizens.
If your (sort of federal government for countries) allowed you to move and reside in another country that belongs to them, then you would be free to pick and choose what government you felt was the best. And when the country you live in is your choice and not just ware you were born you feel a lot more responsible for it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You're describing a federal system, which is what we already have (albeit with 50 states rather than 12). It's obviously not a dumb idea, as it's success is demonstrated by the influence and power of the U.S.. |
Similar that’s true, however on a global scale (a sort of federal government for countries). Oh and they would only really be responsible for managing country to country laws, the countries them selves would still make all the other laws.
The sub division of the U.S. would be something else entirely; it would just be smaller countries. In my mind smaller countries equal more happy citizens.
If your (sort of federal government for countries) allowed you to move and reside in another country that belongs to them, then you would be free to pick and choose what government you felt was the best. And when the country you live in is your choice and not just ware you were born you feel a lot more responsible for it.
One idea I had for a working implementation of communism would be a capitalist economy populated by communist clans. Each clan is free to engage in any private venture it wishes, but the proceeds of all ventures are distributed equally throughout the clan.
This is a good example of what I think the problem is with a lot of governments. They work on a small scale but they seem to fail on a large one. If that’s a true statement then it would also seem to me that we have our answer on how to make a stable government. Keep it on a small scale.
QUOTE
The American psyche still reacts negatively to the word "communism
I agree. When I post that I like Communism or Socialism I mean that I like the ideas presented in them, not the way they are currently being used by other countries. I think we go to extremes every time we (the world) come up with a government structure. I guess it’s only logical considering only extremist seem to get any real recognition or support.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The American psyche still reacts negatively to the word "communism |
I agree. When I post that I like Communism or Socialism I mean that I like the ideas presented in them, not the way they are currently being used by other countries. I think we go to extremes every time we (the world) come up with a government structure. I guess it’s only logical considering only extremist seem to get any real recognition or support.
From the “Utopia?” link:
They say all great art is born of suffering
“Many are willing to suffer for their art. Few are willing to learn to draw”. – Simon Munnery
Suffering is just a common theme that we (artist) can use to engage an audience. You don’t actually have to have suffered to make good art about suffering or good art in general. Sorry for the rant, it’s just a pet peeve of mine.
QUOTE
In capitalism you are free to negotiate your pay with your employer and even have the chance to bypass your employer and work for yourself and maybe even give others the opportunity to work for you.
Work is a great example of capitalism, socialism, and communism being used all at the same time. One department may function as capitalist, like sales. One Department may be socialist with some hints of capitalism, like the general work force of some companies (the last company I worked for was set up like this).
The idea I’m trying to get across is: Why just use one system and try to blanket an entire country with it?
MjolnirPants
14th July 2009 - 05:06 AM
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Jul 13 2009, 11:54 PM)
I have an idea that isn't new which could be used in any large political structure. It has at it's core the ability for the average citizen to participate in important and valuable ways and limits the amount of power and/or influence that any one person could acquire. It is resilient against outside forces and is essentially egalitarian in it's implementation. Communism and democracy are not mutually exclusive terms.
In the most minimal description ... political representatives would be essentially random people ... Under the current U.S. system, you'd plug them in (as appropriate to their resume') to every level from city council to president. I'd estimate a pool of around 100,000,000 "qualified" (TBD) "Public Servants" from which about 1,000,000 or so would be selected to serve from 2 to 5 years at the needed level (selection would be lottery). Eligibility determinations would have to be defined as certain minimum intelligence is necessary for the varying levels.
Blah blah blah ... blah blah ... blah ...
Bu that wouldn't prohibit abuses of power... 2 years is plenty of time to get comfortable in your position and start to abuse it. I've seen people do it in as little as 2 weeks.
Plus it's still not addressing the economic disadvantages, or even the economics at all. It's just a governmental model, which could be applied to a capitalist state as easily as a communist state.
Don't get me wrong, it doesn't seem to be such a bad idea (the whole ensuring they're qualified caveat prevents the obvious difficulties), it's just not an implementation of communism, but an implementation of representative democracy.
uaafanblog
14th July 2009 - 05:25 AM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 14 2009, 05:06 AM)
Bu that wouldn't prohibit abuses of power... 2 years is plenty of time to get comfortable in your position and start to abuse it. I've seen people do it in as little as 2 weeks.
Plus it's still not addressing the economic disadvantages, or even the economics at all. It's just a governmental model, which could be applied to a capitalist state as easily as a communist state.
Don't get me wrong, it doesn't seem to be such a bad idea (the whole ensuring they're qualified caveat prevents the obvious difficulties), it's just not an implementation of communism, but an implementation of representative democracy.
Politicians in this country that attempt to cash in quickly from their postions are generally nailed in the act. The real problem is the lifetime of cronyism that long service creates. It is what built the Kennedy's into a powerful multi-generational event .. same for the Bushes and on on and on both locally and nationally. How many sons of former politicians are current politicians in your locale?
My idea eliminates that. I'd disagree that it is as permeable to corruption as our current system. I think the fact that corrupting influences would be less likely to make attempts when the target was an unknown quantity.
Make public corruption an offense who's punishment was unsavory enough to dissuade them. If your corporation was to be liquidated because your lobbyist bribed a Public Servant then would your corporate board ensure that such a thing never happened?
MjolnirPants
14th July 2009 - 05:50 AM
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Jul 14 2009, 12:25 AM)
Politicians in this country that attempt to cash in quickly from their postions are generally nailed in the act. The real problem is the lifetime of cronyism that long service creates. It is what built the Kennedy's into a powerful multi-generational event .. same for the Bushes and on on and on both locally and nationally. How many sons of former politicians are current politicians in your locale?
My idea eliminates that. I'd disagree that it is as permeable to corruption as our current system. I think the fact that corrupting influences would be less likely to make attempts when the target was an unknown quantity.
Make public corruption an offense who's punishment was unsavory enough to dissuade them. If your corporation was to be liquidated because your lobbyist bribed a Public Servant then would your corporate board ensure that such a thing never happened?
More likely, they'd ensure they were never caught doing such a thing. Large corporations can field massive resources, providing alibis and manufacturing evidence if the company itself were in jeopardy, rather than a single official of that company.
I disagree on the level of effect it would have on abuses of power, but let's assume you're right about it and it all but eliminated them.
What about the economic issues? You're still positing a governmental system, instead of an economic one.
Nihilist
14th July 2009 - 05:54 AM
I know this is more between MjolnirPants and uaafanblog but I’ve got a lot of problems with this last post.
QUOTE
Politicians in this country that attempt to cash in quickly from their postions are generally nailed in the act.
What? Politicians in the U.S. get rich from their positions all the time and don’t get nailed for it. That is assuming that your definition of “Nailed” is punished, and not just that we are aware of it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Politicians in this country that attempt to cash in quickly from their postions are generally nailed in the act. |
What? Politicians in the U.S. get rich from their positions all the time and don’t get nailed for it. That is assuming that your definition of “Nailed” is punished, and not just that we are aware of it.
The real problem is the lifetime of cronyism that long service creates. It is what built the Kennedy's into a powerful multi-generational event .. same for the Bushes and on on and on both locally and nationally. How many sons of former politicians are current politicians in your locale?
Children often go into the same careers as their parents.
QUOTE
Make public corruption an offense who's punishment was unsavory enough to dissuade them. If your corporation was to be liquidated because your lobbyist bribed a Public Servant then would your corporate board ensure that such a thing never happened?
That creates a lot of problems, like giving 1 person the ability to take down their companie, if they don’t like it, by faking a bribe from the company to a lobbyist. Or Liquidating a company like GM – the reason we bailed them out is because if they collapsed they would take down more than just there own company, it would collapse a large portion of the following businesses: Car Sales companies, Car Insurance companies, Gap Insurance companies, Car Manufacturing companies, and more than one bank. Our economy couldn’t handle us liquidating companies without considering the consequences. Then aging your idea is extreme and fun.
P.S. I don’t disagree with everything you’re saying. I just wanted to address these comments.
skepticgriggsy
8th August 2009 - 10:30 PM
flyinbuttress, yea. The acommodationists,in twenty-five years haven't caused much shift in publlic opinion with their approach. As long as they stress that from the side of religion, yea, there is compatiblity; but from the side of science, as we naturalists note, nay!
The weight of evidence reveals no cosmic teleology-no preconceived plans -but teleonomy- non-planning , anti-chance natural selection and randomness in the form of mutation. So, no divinity needs apply for work! In fact, creationist evolution contradicts natural selection rather than be consistent with it.
We are truth-tellers. The real conflict is indeed betwixt reason and faith.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.
Maybe we'd switch to a communist country. I'm glad we have free speech.