U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-16-2009, 09:38 AM
 
197 posts, read 328,131 times
Reputation: 149

Advertisements

This is just theoretical situations but i was just wondering how people on this forum feel. If theoretically there were perfect versions of any political system, which one do you think would work out the best for the most people and why? This also uses the theory that some one has absolute control over what happens, or that each individual has absolute control over all decision, there is no or extremely few/little middle men

(ie, a communism were no one is excluded and one and all are treated exactly the same and given the same, or a fascism were people were not taken advantage of, etc)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-16-2009, 09:44 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,505 posts, read 49,582,235 times
Reputation: 24548
I would prefer a Democratic Republic similar to ours (with all the amendments) but with enough control over investment that absurdities as "tranched" mortgages, derivatives and other forms of speculative inflationary gambling were eliminated from the stock markets while providing, literally, “equal opportunity for all”.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2009, 10:10 AM
 
Location: 125 Years Too Late...
10,366 posts, read 9,996,933 times
Reputation: 9115
What I would like to see does not exist and it's not completely formed in my head (work in progress ).

Government at the federal level would only exist for national security. State and local governments would be responsible for essentials like police, legal, infrastructure, etc. In essence, there would be almost no government (minarchism – libertarian). Although strictly voluntary, the main system would be a ‘cooperative society.’ I won’t say socialist, because that has come to mean something different than it originally did (statist socialism = socialism now). This system would be similar to the ‘farmer’s cooperative’ system that existed in rural America a hundred years ago. Everyone contributes; everyone’s needs are satisfied. If you didn't contribute, you'd get nothing from the system. There would be no for-profit corporations; there would be no interest bearing transactions. As for real estate: all citizens would be ‘land owners’ through their adult life. Each would be granted (whether it be a city dweller or rural dweller) the portion of land and/or shelter that satisfies their needs for their chosen livelihood. Morality would not be a matter of law. All citizens have unrestricted personal freedom to do as they wish as long as they are not hampering that same right for others. I could go on, but that's the basic idea.

The problem with anything like this would be that it presupposes honesty, lack of laziness, and lack of greed. We all know that’s asking a bit much.

So this system would be a sort of mixture of miarchism/anarchism, libertarianism, and cooperativism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2009, 10:35 AM
 
Location: Boise
2,008 posts, read 2,910,030 times
Reputation: 729
I would like to see what real comunism looks like. I'm not saying that's what I would support, I would justr like to see it in action (or lack thereof). Most of the countries that have tried it have modified it so that there is still an upper crust of fat cats.

Either way though, I'd have education like the Greeks did. None of this crap about limiting what kids can learn, they'd learn history, economics and science and all that good stuff; they'd learn all of it their head could hold. I think with a really educated populace, things would be a lot different.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2009, 11:40 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,603,351 times
Reputation: 35875
Benign Monarchy. Where the power passes according to a formula, not according to who is most cunning and cutthroat. But where where there is also a body of "enforcers" who can intervene if an heir to the throne is unsuitable.

Jordan is a living example of this. King Hussein made it a country where people had very wide latitude of personal and civil rights, but no say in the government. The economy was steered progressively by competent advisors. Religion and modern law were afforded a workable blend. When Hussein died, the natural heir to the throne was rejected as being unsuitable, and the crown passed to the next in line.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2009, 10:31 PM
 
197 posts, read 328,131 times
Reputation: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
What I would like to see does not exist and it's not completely formed in my head (work in progress ).

Government at the federal level would only exist for national security. State and local governments would be responsible for essentials like police, legal, infrastructure, etc. In essence, there would be almost no government (minarchism – libertarian). Although strictly voluntary, the main system would be a ‘cooperative society.’ I won’t say socialist, because that has come to mean something different than it originally did (statist socialism = socialism now). This system would be similar to the ‘farmer’s cooperative’ system that existed in rural America a hundred years ago. Everyone contributes; everyone’s needs are satisfied. If you didn't contribute, you'd get nothing from the system. There would be no for-profit corporations; there would be no interest bearing transactions. As for real estate: all citizens would be ‘land owners’ through their adult life. Each would be granted (whether it be a city dweller or rural dweller) the portion of land and/or shelter that satisfies their needs for their chosen livelihood. Morality would not be a matter of law. All citizens have unrestricted personal freedom to do as they wish as long as they are not hampering that same right for others. I could go on, but that's the basic idea.

The problem with anything like this would be that it presupposes honesty, lack of laziness, and lack of greed. We all know that’s asking a bit much.

So this system would be a sort of mixture of miarchism/anarchism, libertarianism, and cooperativism.
I like this idea as well, and i feel that most of this could actually be set up to be a reality. Obviously some areas aren't realistic, but enough eager people were willing to make it happen, i would think it is very possible
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleatis View Post
I would like to see what real comunism looks like. I'm not saying that's what I would support, I would justr like to see it in action (or lack thereof). Most of the countries that have tried it have modified it so that there is still an upper crust of fat cats.

Either way though, I'd have education like the Greeks did. None of this crap about limiting what kids can learn, they'd learn history, economics and science and all that good stuff; they'd learn all of it their head could hold. I think with a really educated populace, things would be a lot different.
Yes, again, there are MANY people in the US who are so pacifist they really do not care to have much "control" in their lives and as long as most/everything was taken care of them they would be completely happy. Honestly, my dad would do really well in a REAL communism.. lol. Seriously though, real communism potentially works out the best. It would seem logical that every person would have a moderately high standard of living. To your second point i definitely agree, and its marginally what happens in private schools. Kids are pushed without limits and do amazingly, our brains are crazy in our younger stages of life, if taught properly we can absorb so much information so well. I mean, look at all the Greeks accomplished, its crazy.

Even though i will honestly admit that i like certain parts about a perfect communism the most, i feel that more people would enjoy perfect anarchy, and it would be the best. In a communism, even if the leaders are completely benevolent i feel it makes the populous very distant from one another, people might become more like drones, or more people, as i think a fair amount, just more than half would enjoy such a system, but thats not that great of a percentage.

SO, i feel what chrisC has suggested is really the best, everyone puts in their share, everyone gets their share, there is no such thing as profit, people get what they need yet still get to enjoy leisures and some wants, community, relationships, family and proper education become central. Actually, just thought about it, truly, the best system i have found is found here The Venus Project Not that i completely agree with every aspect, but it seems pretty good.

Interesting viewpoints guys, i enjoy your input.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2009, 10:40 PM
 
48,519 posts, read 81,076,846 times
Reputation: 17978
I thnik we can see which one would workout best by past performance. Make it perfect and everybody would be happy and rich in a capitalist system. Make communism and socailism perfect and the people would still be a under class of people and a elite. That is because a centrlized governamnt would control it that way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2009, 11:58 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,603,351 times
Reputation: 35875
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
. Make it perfect and everybody would be happy and rich in a capitalist system. .
No, if you plot the variables in a graph and look and see what is the predictable outcome of capitalism, the outlook down the road is abject poverty for everyone except a relatively few people who will amass sufficient power to control ALL the wealth. Why would they not? What would be the incentive to stop piling up huge fortunes? If it is a pure capitalism, what force would prevail to interfere with a few powerful people (or one) eventually getting everything?

Have you noticed that the per capita GDP in the capitalist world as a whole is $8,000 and in China it is $6,000, and the gap is narrowing. That's not exactly overwhelming evidence of the superiority of capitalism as a means of generating wealth. And that's the only thing capitalism does consistently or even sometimes well, if Haiti, Myanmar, Iran and Zimbabwe are any indicator of capitalism's other virtues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2009, 10:19 AM
 
Location: Columbus, OH
857 posts, read 1,229,333 times
Reputation: 558
What I would love to see is a nation whose government was a representative democracy based on the US but citizenship has to be earned and not just given to anyone. I think a citizenship test would make sense but the country would need a fair and equal education system to be fair. Or maybe not citizenship but just the right to vote should require a test, this way we don't have a segregated society of citizen vs non citizen.

Elections would be run as independents with no political parties of any kind. Campaigns would be run on a government check of equal amount to each candidate. No political donations of any kind, thus no special interests/lobbyists. And without the extra cash candidates would have to use their money wisely to get their message out, thus no more political smear campaigns. And with the voters would be well educated and thus the debates would actually matter.

Educated people electing officials with no ties to a political party or funded by lobbyists would mean the government could actually work on fixing whatever problem is at hand without worrying about appeasing lobbyists/party members. Imagine if everyone voted based on what they personally felt was best, what a concept!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2009, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,603,351 times
Reputation: 35875
I'll do you one further. Members of the legislature are chosen by lot, like juries. In order to be eligible, one must either have a full-time job, or a high school diploma. Those with a criminal record must have been free for at least 5 years (most recidivists go back within a year). Age must be 18-70. Must be fluent in English.

For our 438 seats in the House, there would be a prellminary draws of 1.500. Those would then be entered into a computer, which would reduce the number to 438 with the broadest mix of age and geographical residence, since a purely random draw could result in too much concentration of one of those factors. In other words, make sure there is at least one from North Dakota, but not more than two. The number in their 20s is approximately equal to the number in their 50s. All terms would be four years, staggered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top