Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[qwertyuiopas]

{crazy ramblings}
What would be needed for a good society is to have one person in power, selected by popular opinion, and with no power to alter laws. That position can only be occupied for at most one year, and for a person to be selected for it more than once in their lifetime would require a massive majority.

An entirely separate group would work with the laws, and that group would defer to the people as much as possible.

All such positions of power would have an easy way for a citizen to start a process ot remove the occupant, though with safeguards to prevent chaotic people from just ruining everything.

They would also be restricted to a salary within a reasonable range(certainly not anything over roughly ten times that available to an average citizen).


Most importantly, and this is where democracy significantly deviates, is that the public must together have the power to remove any leader they feel is corrupt, and that they should naturally cycle through "average" people who have lived in less-than-the-best conditions, so they will have at least some empathy for the "common" person.

Some of this is close to democracy, but I feel that more frequently cycling most/all government employees and making it clear to everyone how they can express their opinion that the current people in power are corrupt would bring it all closer to "better".

Also, subdividing major governing duties would mean that one person doesn't have to be nearly as politically skilled in all areas to govern well, a key step toward ensuring that a common person has at least a chance at a political future.

{/crazy ramblings}

[Croquantes]

Restating some points: Communism is dead, but capitalism is dead as well. Right now, socialism is in. People don't believe that capitalism looks out for their interests, so many are lobbying their government for more social safety nets. Labour laws, health care, free or subsidized education and even strict environmental laws are all socialist and detrimental to a capitalist society.

Look at Somalia, there's no government, thus no rules. Today, it's the most capitalistic society on earth. No wage controls, no environmental laws and no minimum wage! You can go to a open air market to purchase guns and ammunition and Somalia has some of the lowest mobile phone and internet rates in Africa. Sounds like a nice place to live eh?

In the future, democractic communism might come about on its own but there are a few prerequisites. Fusion power, and advanced robotic technology to replace humans in labour-intensive jobs. Infinite energy capacity and a flood of cheap resources and goods would make money useless. I don't know what we'd trade instead. Perhaps knowledge?

I'll stop here. Too drunk XD

[Jude]

Pure Communism, as exposed by Lenin and his kin, is well dead.

Pure Communism never existed outside cold war propaganda or the fox news definition of a generic term for enemy of the state. Communism is a unattainable absolute like its opposite anarchism.

Pure communism does exist, just not on a national level, and it requires strong religious indoctrination. The Shakers and Quakers are a good example.

it doesn't have to be religious. A lot of intentional communities are Christian but a lot aren't. And anyway, the root word of communism is community...that's like I said. It works for small communities where there's trust and mutual accountability, as long as you have enough people that aren't too selfish.

[The Architect]

{crazy ramblings}
What would be needed for a good society is to have one person in power, selected by popular opinion, and with no power to alter laws. That position can only be occupied for at most one year, and for a person to be selected for it more than once in their lifetime would require a massive majority.

An entirely separate group would work with the laws, and that group would defer to the people as much as possible.

All such positions of power would have an easy way for a citizen to start a process ot remove the occupant, though with safeguards to prevent chaotic people from just ruining everything.

They would also be restricted to a salary within a reasonable range(certainly not anything over roughly ten times that available to an average citizen).


Most importantly, and this is where democracy significantly deviates, is that the public must together have the power to remove any leader they feel is corrupt, and that they should naturally cycle through "average" people who have lived in less-than-the-best conditions, so they will have at least some empathy for the "common" person.

Some of this is close to democracy, but I feel that more frequently cycling most/all government employees and making it clear to everyone how they can express their opinion that the current people in power are corrupt would bring it all closer to "better".

Also, subdividing major governing duties would mean that one person doesn't have to be nearly as politically skilled in all areas to govern well, a key step toward ensuring that a common person has at least a chance at a political future.

{/crazy ramblings}

Crazy is right. You're just talking about a democracy. Cycling people more often doesn't make it any different. Well, technically a republic, but when the people can remove someone from power at any time it is a democracy. A democracy is also known as mob rule. One of the biggest problems right now is that politicians worry so much about reelection, they'd rather do what their constituents tell them than what they may think is right. You'd be helping that problem, but in another sense you'd be exacerbating it: the person who held office would still want a cush position from the party and its constituents, getting as much out of the office as he could before he vacated it.

The President doesn't have the power to change the laws anyway. As our commonly elected official, he represents all the people with the power of veto. The issue is that a political party (or two) can gain a vice-grip on power and will do whatever it takes to keep it. As the President (or in your case Mr. in-charge-for-a-year ~in charge of what, btw? what are his powers?) is an interested member of the party, he doesn't need to change the laws. All he needs to do is serve his party's interests and they will take care of the laws.

The "common man", firstly, doesn't really exist. Everyone has a background that differs from other people. If you mean that you want to remove equal rights and prohibit the wealthy or main-stream from gaining office... whatever.

A big part would be removing reelection, then again it would undoubtedly increase corruption at least in the short term as everyone would have to go somewhere after office. In the long term, it would fix many problems with the current government.

Unfortunately, the people who make the laws are the ones who need to have the right to infinite reelection removed, so it will never happen.

[LegoLord]

If a man lowers his prices and improves the quality of his product to beat a competitor, is he being self-serving?  He's doing it for his own gain, but his customers benefit as well.

Like Neruz said, it's too gray to say we are or aren't self-serving.

Of course that doesn't always help, mainly when lowering the price is done in excess.  One good example is Wal-Mart.  They pull every dirty trick they can to get their prices low and still make a profit.  Minimum wage, buying as much from cheap overseas sources as they can, holding back job applications to maintain a state of being understaffed, and thus having an excuse to ask employees to work unpaid or underpaid overtime, giving workers poor work conditions (my aunt had to deal with that at a Wal-Mart distribution center).

Then when Wal-mart moves into a new area, it's like dropping a bomb on the local specialty businesses.  A lot will go out of business since everyone is starting to go to Wal-Mart.  But the Wal-Mart is only taking in a few employees.  So what do the unemployed do?  Get some other bad job if they aren't lucky enough to get one at Wal-Mart.  The saddest part is that these people hurt by Wal-Mart can really only shop there, on account of having so little income.

[The Architect]

All true. I've also heard other dirty stories about Walmart. One example is below along with my own latest problem with Wmart (where I shop constantly).

They order a large number of items from a private business, in this case it was a greenhouse. They do this with a contract, greenhouse produces X items at Y price for Wmart. Greenhouse goes nuts, yay, lots of business, a guaranteed buyer. Next, Wmart says "We want to keep buying from you, but we can only do it at a volume of 20X." Greenhouse says sure, expands (with loans), another year's contract. Woot woot. Process may go on another year. Eventually, Wmart says "Now we want 300X, but we are only paying Y/3." Greenhouse is in debt up to their eyeballs, has previously been making mad money, spending it all on additions to meet growing Wmart contracts. Now, they have to agree even though it costs them Y/4 to make the product (pine tree saplings). Wmart knows this, and knows that they now have the greenhouse in their pocket.

They have been varying on this formula by eventually dropping the contract entirely and buying the businesses out, creating "Great Value" brands.

The new experience with Wmart that I was talking about is related to these "Great Value" brands. Wmart is monopolizing markets, because they control the point of sale for virtually every grocery and many other products. For instance, they can choose to sell Barber's milk for $3, and sell their own low-quality milk for $2. Barber's may only cost them $1, and theirs may cost them $0.75. However, if people buy the Barber's anyway Wmart gains $2, and subsidizes their milk production. Eventually Barber's will go out of business and Wmart will hike their milk up to $4.

They are doing that with products all across the store, from Listerine to cane sugar. They control the market, so now they can even drive their own suppliers out of business. Once you have ultimate horizontal expansion, you can gain vertical expansion with ease. Sickeningly efficient, and the end result is that we drink crappy milk and pay a ton.

[Strife26]

All true. I've also heard other dirty stories about Walmart. One example is below along with my own latest problem with Wmart (where I shop constantly).

They order a large number of items from a private business, in this case it was a greenhouse. They do this with a contract, greenhouse produces X items at Y price for Wmart. Greenhouse goes nuts, yay, lots of business, a guaranteed buyer. Next, Wmart says "We want to keep buying from you, but we can only do it at a volume of 20X." Greenhouse says sure, expands (with loans), another year's contract. Woot woot. Process may go on another year. Eventually, Wmart says "Now we want 300X, but we are only paying Y/3." Greenhouse is in debt up to their eyeballs, has previously been making mad money, spending it all on additions to meet growing Wmart contracts. Now, they have to agree even though it costs them Y/4 to make the product (pine tree saplings). Wmart knows this, and knows that they now have the greenhouse in their pocket.

They have been varying on this formula by eventually dropping the contract entirely and buying the businesses out, creating "Great Value" brands.

The new experience with Wmart that I was talking about is related to these "Great Value" brands. Wmart is monopolizing markets, because they control the point of sale for virtually every grocery and many other products. For instance, they can choose to sell Barber's milk for $3, and sell their own low-quality milk for $2. Barber's may only cost them $1, and theirs may cost them $0.75. However, if people buy the Barber's anyway Wmart gains $2, and subsidizes their milk production. Eventually Barber's will go out of business and Wmart will hike their milk up to $4.

They are doing that with products all across the store, from Listerine to cane sugar. They control the market, so now they can even drive their own suppliers out of business. Once you have ultimate horizontal expansion, you can gain vertical expansion with ease. Sickeningly efficient, and the end result is that we drink crappy milk and pay a ton.

And that, is why war is inevitable.

[LegoLord]

Huh? How do we go to war with Wal-Mart?

Not that I'd disapprove of it if you found a way, but there's not really much to fight.

[Little]

All true. I've also heard other dirty stories about Walmart. One example is below along with my own latest problem with Wmart (where I shop constantly).

They order a large number of items from a private business, in this case it was a greenhouse. They do this with a contract, greenhouse produces X items at Y price for Wmart. Greenhouse goes nuts, yay, lots of business, a guaranteed buyer. Next, Wmart says "We want to keep buying from you, but we can only do it at a volume of 20X." Greenhouse says sure, expands (with loans), another year's contract. Woot woot. Process may go on another year. Eventually, Wmart says "Now we want 300X, but we are only paying Y/3." Greenhouse is in debt up to their eyeballs, has previously been making mad money, spending it all on additions to meet growing Wmart contracts. Now, they have to agree even though it costs them Y/4 to make the product (pine tree saplings). Wmart knows this, and knows that they now have the greenhouse in their pocket.

They have been varying on this formula by eventually dropping the contract entirely and buying the businesses out, creating "Great Value" brands.

The new experience with Wmart that I was talking about is related to these "Great Value" brands. Wmart is monopolizing markets, because they control the point of sale for virtually every grocery and many other products. For instance, they can choose to sell Barber's milk for $3, and sell their own low-quality milk for $2. Barber's may only cost them $1, and theirs may cost them $0.75. However, if people buy the Barber's anyway Wmart gains $2, and subsidizes their milk production. Eventually Barber's will go out of business and Wmart will hike their milk up to $4.

They are doing that with products all across the store, from Listerine to cane sugar. They control the market, so now they can even drive their own suppliers out of business. Once you have ultimate horizontal expansion, you can gain vertical expansion with ease. Sickeningly efficient, and the end result is that we drink crappy milk and pay a ton.

That's what happens when you let capitalism run wild. Greed overwhelms everything else, but I don't think people are going to take it for long. Attitudes that once seemed fringe(like being against the extreme free-market) are now becoming mainstream, and I wouldn't be surprised if Walmart gets nailed either by legislation or angry mobs sometime in the near future. Capitalism is a decent system when done correctly, not a great one but decent, and Walmart is taking that flawed system and abusing it for profit while destroying lives. If Walmart started killing people we'd hang the CEOs, but what about all the lives devastated by the job loss and the crippled economies in towns where Walmart spreads to? Where is the justice for that?

[eerr]

BTW, Mao Zedong watches James Bond.
And he likes it.

[Dakk]

TL;DR Communism is actualy a decent idea, but its too utopic to work. Like maggard said, its against human nature. One thing Hobbes got right was the nature of man, though he sorta messed up later by supporting absolutist monarchy, but his ideas were more realistic then Rousseau's.

[Dasleah]

BTW, Mao Zedong watches James Bond.
And he likes it.

He has a television playing them in his tomb? How decadently capitalist.

[Cthulhu]

I was wondering about that.

[Lord Dakoth]

Of course that doesn't always help, mainly when lowering the price is done in excess.  One good example is Wal-Mart.  They pull every dirty trick they can to get their prices low and still make a profit.  Minimum wage, buying as much from cheap overseas sources as they can, holding back job applications to maintain a state of being understaffed, and thus having an excuse to ask employees to work unpaid or underpaid overtime, giving workers poor work conditions (my aunt had to deal with that at a Wal-Mart distribution center).

Then when Wal-mart moves into a new area, it's like dropping a bomb on the local specialty businesses.  A lot will go out of business since everyone is starting to go to Wal-Mart.  But the Wal-Mart is only taking in a few employees.  So what do the unemployed do?  Get some other bad job if they aren't lucky enough to get one at Wal-Mart.  The saddest part is that these people hurt by Wal-Mart can really only shop there, on account of having so little income.

So what do you suggest we do? It's not the company's goal to give out good jobs, it's to make money. If you don't like you job, you can quit.

And I ask you, why does everyone start going to Wal-Mart instead of the local businesses? I would propose that this is because Wal-Mart supplies better products at lower prices. People just wouldn't go there if they got shit service.

Businesses going out of business is part of any properly developing economy. Yes, it sucks for you if your family-owned business is out-competed by another business, but it's all part of economic growth. It's why we don't still have typewriter companies now that we have computers. It's why we don't have pressure cookers now that we have microwaves. It's the whole reason why humankind advances.

[The Architect]

You're very right, free enterprise is extremely important and the main reason why humanity "advances". In fact, I would consider socialism to be the biggest backtrack in human history if it were to prevail.

However, even free enterprise must be tempered by morality, or it will be abused by individuals and companies such as Walmart.