Print

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

[malimbar04]

So I was listening to talk radio today (shame on me), and it got me thinking. How would we make a better society, with a better government?

Right now in america the two stereotypes are of Regan-republican-conservatives and the Democrat-liberals. The stereotype as i understand it generally breaks down to this:
- Republicans want less taxes, and are willing to sacrifice services to do so
- Democrats want more services, and are willing to tax more to do so

So the questions arise:
- What services should the government perform?
- Are there better (cheaper / more effective) alternatives to these services?
- How can we organize the government to be more efficient?
- If we were to make a completely new government, how would we set it up?

[Nikov]

On the federal scale?

1. Defend the national interest, uphold the rule of law, and mint currency.
2. None, and that's the point.
3. Gut it.
4. Return to 1870.

On the state scale powers get broader, and the local scale even broader than that. But this means you can move from town to town or state to state to suit your own tastes regarding those annoying little social issues or your preferred level of taxes and public services.

[Leafsnail]

- Republicans want less taxes, and are willing to sacrifice services to do so
- Democrats want more services, and are willing to tax more to do so

Before you get into any of the issues people really care about... yeah.

[Dwarf]

1. Defend the national interest, uphold the rule of law, and mint currency.

This?
Danger: Arch-conservative incoming 

[malimbar04]

On the federal scale?

on any scale. What should a government be able to do that we can't do for ourselves

1. Defend the national interest, uphold the rule of law, and mint currency.

currency I understand, since we need to trust it, while competition would hurt a currency.

protecting the national  interest and upholding their own laws I don't understand. It's too vague. What can be considered a "national interest"? A few years ago there was a town that kicked people out of their house in order to build a wal-mart. They used "the interest of the city" as justification, as it would create jobs for everyone else. Should behavior like this be allowed? If we left it at this then the country could do anything it wanted to, and then could uphold it since they just made the law. 

2. None, and that's the point.

How does this compare to a local militia? That would be cheaper and more efficient, while also theoretically being able to uphold the law and to a certain extend defend the national interest. 

3. Gut it.
4. Return to 1870.

3 and 4 seem like they go together, but gutting it AND returning to 1870-like culture seems like a bad idea. 1970 was a crappy time. If we were to gut it and set it up new, your saying we can't do better?

On the state scale powers get broader, and the local scale even broader than that. But this means you can move from town to town or state to state to suit your own tastes regarding those annoying little social issues or your preferred level of taxes and public services.

"broader" the more local you get is generally agreeable, but is says next to nothing. I assume you mean that the higher governments override the lower governments. I also assume you mean that higher governments should be restricted in what they can do. However, what if the government obtains a power that that we wouldn't like it to have? What motivation is there to remove it? How difficult would it be to remove, and what are the consequences in the meantime? This, by the way, wouldn't fit with your assertion for #2 - defending hte national interest and defending the rule of law can be expanded to every imaginable power a government can have.

1. Defend the national interest, uphold the rule of law, and mint currency.

This?
Danger: Arch-conservative incoming 

Maybe, but we shouldn't mind. If we were to improve politics, we can't tilt the favor to non-conservatives. All of their concerns should be addressed as well.

[Virex]

There's also the question if managing unemployment rates, providing health care et cetera falls under the national interest.

[Autarch]

Go communist.

Pure communism.

[Dwarf]

Go communist.

Pure communism.

I agree.

[Vector]

4. Return to 1870.

But I like my human rights and ability to vote =/

[MetalSlimeHunt]

4. Return to 1870.

But I like my human rights and ability to vote =/

I quite enjoy the lack of monopolies and child labor, myself.

[Virex]

4. Return to 1870.

But I like my human rights and ability to vote =/

I quite enjoy the lack of monopolies and child labor, myself.

You live on Antartica or something?

[Vector]

You live on Antartica or something?

If you're including me in there, I'm not going to say that the system is perfect (obviously).  I just mean "relative to 1870."  That goes for trust-busting and child labor, too.

[malimbar04]

Go communist.

Pure communism.

I agree.

but pure communism doesn't promote progress. A pure communism would mean (correct me if I'm wrong) that everyone gives their resources to elected officials, who then disperse it back to everyone. This provides a few problems, mainly that it gives too much power to officials, and it gives little incentive to do the less glamorous and more difficult jobs. Who wants to work 10 super-productive hours a day to farm or cleanup sewage when you can spend the same time as a student studying art history? The former are required simply to have a decent standard of living, but the later is a LOT easier.

[Grakelin]

That's commonly cited as an argument against Communism, but if it was done efficiently, not everybody could just be an art history student. I imagine that it would be similar to non-citizens who want to work in the US: Great, so long as we need your desired profession. We would be much more competitive in our school years if we wanted to get the job we wanted. And if you don't get that job, you have to do the stuff nobody else wants to. Or you don't get your shares. There's this illusion that we would all be able to choose the easiest thing to be and run with it.

It's also us looking at it through the lens of our capitalist upbringings. A Communist state would value different things than we do. Whereas we value money and resources, they would be more likely to value reputation and social status (or tradition and honour, or whatever else). So I wouldn't just drop out of school and be a night custodian knowing I would get the same stuff. I would work, and be pressured to work by society, to be something considered useful, like a Doctor or an Architect or a Teacher.

I'm not putting in support one way or another for it here. I'm just putting forward what this involves.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Communism is a thinly veiled despotism. Socialism is the way to go.