republicans have no ideas and democrats have stupid ideas

Author: n8nrgim

Posts

Total: 49
#31
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,962
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
The building blocks to ones future status are education and diligence.

No good complaining once one has made a hash of things, and then trying to blame those who made a success of their lives.

Just like the slave reference, it's hopeless extending arguments backwards.


And an inherently incapable person given capital, will most likely squander it rather than make shrewd investments for the future.


Nanny State only works if there are people to do the nannying.


Though I would add, that if populations stay high then a lot of people are going to find it tough in this new technological era.

Perhaps the only way for the unemployable working classes to make a living, will be as cannon fodder for the National elites.


Interesting times ahead.
#32
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
The building blocks to ones future status are education and diligence.
those certainly are important. But if you want to be truly successful, having money, connections and a degree from a school that costs 100's of thousands of dollars matters more. 

Just like the slave reference, it's hopeless extending arguments backwards.
no, it's very useful to extend a silly argument to help to highlight how silly it is. You are telling people to just be content with whatever the rich and powerful see fit to let you have. That is the exact argument used by slave owners. Modern americans aren't slaves, but they are controlled by the rich all the same and have little to no way out.

And an inherently incapable person given capital, will most likely squander it rather than make shrewd investments for the future.
are you aware that financial advisors are a thing? Most rich people don't manage much of their own money. They pay people to do it for them. 

Nanny State only works if there are people to do the nannying.
you say nanny state, I say functional society. Things that are critically important to the functioning of society used to be ridiculous notions that the rich spat upon. For example, free education for poor people. And now giving all children a primary and secondary education is the backbone of the modern workforce. Without it, we would be nowhere near as prosperous. But the idea of extending this to post secondary education is still spat upon by the rich and they call is socialism. God forbid poor people have equal chance to succeed as they do.

Perhaps the only way for the unemployable working classes to make a living, will be as cannon fodder for the National elites.
or, more likely, we will need a much more socialist society. One where the government provides for their people even though their labor is no longer required. Because if they don't, there are alot more poor people than rich people....
#33
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,962
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
Yep. 

A socialist society, with a nanny government and a social elite.

Exactly what we have now.

Just a different name.


Nice discussing with you.
#34
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
A socialist society, with a nanny government and a social elite.

Exactly what we have now.
I guess you want to go back to the 1700's where companies literally worked their employees to death. Personally, I find being enslaved by corporations for just enough money to avoid starving to death to be a bad thing. But to each their own I suppose. 


#35
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,962
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
You have a corporation obsession.


And nope, I don't yearn for the past.

Yearning for the past is a futile exercise.


Essentially society is the same today as it always was,

Leaders followed by those that toe the line, and those that criticise.

Socialist or capitalist, social structure will always be structured thus.

And history should tell you that so called attempts at socialism, never tolerated critics.
#36
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
Essentially society is the same today as it always was,
what? that is so wrong as to be ridiculous. A few decades ago black people could be barred from voting. Women couldn't vote until 1920. Elections didn't exist until relatively recently, historically speaking. During the industrial revolution your employers could beat you and work you to death if they wanted to. They regularly employeed small children who had little to no protections and were regularly maimed and killed in these jobs. 

I could go on and on about how society has changed in the last 200-300 years. It is drastic. Society today is incredibly different. So saying society is the same as it always was is just painful to read and shows a wild misunderstanding of history. 

And history should tell you that so called attempts at socialism, never tolerated critics.
what? most of the developed world uses some sort of social democracy. These are the freest countries on the planet. 

#37
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,962
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
As I stated.

Social structure is always essentially the same.

History lessons just inform us of past events that occurred within a typically arranged hierarchical social system.

My general point is, that people will always fall into line whatever the system.


And I was quite clearly referring to the concept of socialism.

Social democracy is a general term  that compounds the words social and democracy.

And for sure, history shows us that attempts at socialism have a tendency to become oppressive and restrictive, whereas social democracies have a tendency to be the opposite.

Though I might add, that social democracies are often plagued with corruption, which might also lead to oppressive and restrictive practices.

Power corrupts as the saying goes.




#38
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
Social structure is always essentially the same.
this is nonsense. A representative democracy in a society where people have rights and all get an education is nothing like a monarchy where people are essentially property of the crown. 

My general point is, that people will always fall into line whatever the system.
so your point is that we are communal species? that's it. Any 5th grader could tell you that. 

And for sure, history shows us that attempts at socialism have a tendency to become oppressive and restrictive
I would argue that this isn't true. I would argue there hasn't ever really been a true socialist country. There have only been dictatorships masquerading as socialism. Just because a dictator owns and controls all the means of production doesn't make it socialism, even if they say it is. 

Though I might add, that social democracies are often plagued with corruption, which might also lead to oppressive and restrictive practices.
all countries are plagued with corruption. Humans are easily corrupted. In social democracies  it is just alot easier to see and expose the corruption. 
#39
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,569
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
 There have only been dictatorships masquerading as socialism.

How would you give power to the people instead of what we have today?
#40
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
How would you give power to the people instead of what we have today?
it's a complicated question and I don't pretend to know the perfect answer. Here are a couple ideas though. 

1) I'd say you would need more representative democracy for starters. IE no 2 party system where you can lock voters into voting for you as long as you are a little less evil than the other guy. A system where if 1 guy gets 40% of the votes, he gets 40% of the political power.

2) Banning all private funding of politicians and elections. Allowing the rich and corporations to donate to campaigns just gives them power to buy politicians. I think publicly funded elections would be much better. For example, the government allocates a certain amount of money, let's say $100, to each person and they can give it to whichever candidate(s) they want. That way political campaigns couldn't be run trying to appeal to rich donors. 

3) banning all the legal, but super corrupt grifting methods used by politicians. IE serving on the boards of companies after you leave office, allowing them to trade stocks while in office (and while they have access to insider knowledge). Being an elected official should not be something that gets you rich. Allowing this to happen just encourages politicians to serve the wealthy and corporations while screwing over the people voting for them.

#41
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,569
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
1) I'd say you would need more representative democracy for starters. IE no 2 party system where you can lock voters into voting for you as long as you are a little less evil than the other guy. A system where if 1 guy gets 40% of the votes, he gets 40% of the political power.

Would ranked choice voting fix this?

2) Banning all private funding of politicians and elections. Allowing the rich and corporations to donate to campaigns just gives them power to buy politicians. I think publicly funded elections would be much better. For example, the government allocates a certain amount of money, let's say $100, to each person and they can give it to whichever candidate(s) they want. That way political campaigns couldn't be run trying to appeal to rich donors. 

What would you say to a complete ban on any campaign funds and all candidates (that meet a set minimum support threshold) get an equal share of public funds to campaign with?

3) banning all the legal, but super corrupt grifting methods used by politicians. IE serving on the boards of companies after you leave office, allowing them to trade stocks while in office (and while they have access to insider knowledge). Being an elected official should not be something that gets you rich. Allowing this to happen just encourages politicians to serve the wealthy and corporations while screwing over the people voting for them.

this one is real tough. I will have to think a lot on how to fix this.

My usual go-to solution to this is to remove a lot of the regulatory the powers the government wields to trade for wealth, but some regulation is necessary, and it would be really hard to flesh this out.
#42
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Would ranked choice voting fix this?
I think it would be better than 1st past the post. It could potentially have other problems though. For example in Canada like 10 years ago, they were looking at election reform. The biggest party which is the centrist party (the liberals) wanted ranked choice voting. But every other party said no. This would have basically guaranteed they win every election. A proportional system would be better I think. One where if party A gets 40% of the votes, they get 40% of the seats in the legislature. It has other flaws, but it allows people to actually vote for what they want instead of just voting against what they hate. 

What would you say to a complete ban on any campaign funds and all candidates (that meet a set minimum support threshold) get an equal share of public funds to campaign with?
this would be an improvement over current systems, but would be a bit wonky I think. For example if the threshold were at say, 5%. Then a small party with little support would get the same funding as a major party with lots of support. It would amplify fringe voices over the voices of the majority. And if you set the threshold higher, then you are effectively silencing those who can't hit that threshold since they can't get any funding to get their ideas out there.

This why I like the idea of everyone having a small amount they can choose which party to give it to. That way the parties that actually try to appeal to people are the ones who get funding. 

My usual go-to solution to this is to remove a lot of the regulatory the powers the government wields to trade for wealth, but some regulation is necessary, and it would be really hard to flesh this out.
Regulation is always necessary. If you don't want companies poisoning your water, working children to death etc, you need regulations. And as long as regulations exist, companies will want to lobby to get the government to make these regulations benefit them. As an example, Joe Manchin's family owns coal mines and he fights against any attempt to regulate the coal industry to stop them from polluting. This is just blatant corruption. 

The only way I can see to do this is to basically just ban any way politicians can profit off of their office. term limits would probably also help. That way these corrupt politicians that have been bought can't sit there and continue their corruption forever, like Joe Manchin.
#43
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,962
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
Yep, we agree then.

No such thing as true socialism.

 Tyranny dressed up as socialism.

Or some form of social democracy


And why would that be?

For the simple 5th grade reasons I have given.


And Monarchy is/was just another variation on a theme of hierarchical society.

Though I would suggest that most modern States headed by a ceremonial monarch, these days fall into the general category of social democracy.




#44
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
And why would that be?
because socialism is "perfect", but humans are not. We are greedy and self centered. So creating a political system based around a philosophy that runs contrary to human nature is doomed to failure. 

And Monarchy is/was just another variation on a theme of hierarchical society.
ok, but all society is hierarchical. It doesn't mean monarchy and democracy is the same thing, or even similar. It means they have 1 basic building block in common. 

Though I would suggest that most modern States headed by a ceremonial monarch, these days fall into the general category of social democracy.
I mean, most modern nations are. If they have things like a minimum wage, free primary education, democratic elctions, etc, then they are probably a social democracy. In a true capitalist system, the government would not provide any of these things. 
#45
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,033
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
because socialism is "perfect", but humans are not. We are greedy and self centered. So creating a political system based around a philosophy that runs contrary to human nature is doomed to failure. 
Socialism isn’t perfect, capitalism isn’t perfect, feudalism isn’t perfect. No political system is perfect. We can agree on that… But the number one failure of government is greed/corruption. You know absolutely nothing about history if you think otherwise.. You might as well say the history of human society isn’t natural if you’re unable to seperate an is from an ought. 
#46
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,962
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
Hey, we're just about there.

Nice discussion.
#47
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
Socialism isn’t perfect, capitalism isn’t perfect, feudalism isn’t perfect. 
true. I was using the quotes around it to imply that it is intended to be a "perfect", as in everyone is equal, we all get along etc. But in practice it turns into a shit show. 

But the number one failure of government is greed/corruption. You know absolutely nothing about history if you think otherwise
I mean, that is literally what I said. "because socialism is "perfect", but humans are not. We are greedy and self centered." I was saying that greed and being self centered makes the system not work. IE corruption. 
#48
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,962
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
Well.

I will finish by saying that systems work, but could perhaps work differently.

I suppose it all depends upon what if any the purpose of the human system is.

Perhaps the individual and the quality of it's existence, are irrelevant factors of a greater scheme.

Or not as the case may be.


The new space race....Or should I say, new struggle to get to the Moon.

Another small step for mankind or inter tribal futility?

Two crashes in one week for the Ruskies.

India a go go.

China?

USA?

Who knows what we could achieve if we all worked together?

Call me a dreamer Mr Spock.


#49
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,569
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Call me a dreamer Mr Spock.

Fascinating.