Political systems, what works?

[The Monster]

Hey so I've had an arising interest towards people's political perspectives, and whether they truly believed their systems were effective. So I come to you today, to discuss what politics means to you and to see if we can come to any conclusions.

Now I understand this is quite a general discussion, so I've composed a series of questions relating towards the matter

Firstly, what political ideology do you find the most appealing and why?

Secondly, name one political leader or icon you would like to see run it? and Why?

Thirdly, name one thing you'd like to see changed within political systems today?


Anyways those are just a few things I could think of, so if you have any other concerns feel free to discuss.

[qooqǝɯɐƃ]

I can't answer everything there because I don't know much about the specific politicians but I'll answer the first.

I don't bother siding with a specific party, but rather the party that talks the most sense. I believe in personal freedom, however I don't know much about how the government should be involved with the economy... There's perfect competition and the free market and then there's government regulations and high taxes and such... To put that in party perspective I believe that puts me on the side of Libertarian or Liberal.

Also just something I've noticed is that in regard to the government being involved in the economy, it seems people see the facts differently on either side of the spectrum.

The American political system shouldn't allow politicians to earn large salaries, it gets the wrong people involved. This doesn't count out bribes, but still. And that reminds me this one quote

If human beings are fundamentally good, no government is necessary; if they are fundamentally bad, any government, being composed of human beings, would be bad also.
Fred Woodworth

And you gotta love this quote, even if you're not American

If 'pro' is the opposite of 'con' what is the opposite of 'progress'?
Paul Harvey

[krzych32]

"The American political system shouldn't allow politicians to earn large salaries, it gets the wrong people involved. This doesn't count out bribes, but still. "

Most people getting involved in high end politics are already well off in the first place so I don't think money makes that much of a difference. Also, we pay people based on how much we believe their skills are worth. For example if would be unfair to pay as much to a doctor as to a construction worker just because someone may become a doctor for wrong reasons.

[qooqǝɯɐƃ]

All I'm saying is that money should not be an incentive if you want good politics. And it's not like doctors aren't trying to get patients into the OR for expensive surgeries. It's all about the money in America.

[marypo]

Nov 6, 2010 0:55:45 GMT -5 qooqǝɯɐƃ said:

All I'm saying is that money should not be an incentive if you want good politics. And it's not like doctors aren't trying to get patients into the OR for expensive surgeries. It's all about the money in America.

Everyone needs to make a living. How could we expect a dedicated professional if they had to work a job on the side?

[amon91]

Nov 6, 2010 16:16:29 GMT -5 marypo said:

Nov 6, 2010 0:55:45 GMT -5 qooqǝɯɐƃ said:

All I'm saying is that money should not be an incentive if you want good politics. And it's not like doctors aren't trying to get patients into the OR for expensive surgeries. It's all about the money in America.

Everyone needs to make a living. How could we expect a dedicated professional if they had to work a job on the side?

"Making a living" doesn't mean they should make over a quarter million dollars a year (like Obama claimed to make a while ago). I don't think politicians should live poorly by any means, but paying them huge salaries while the country is in huge debt doesn't sound like the best idea.

[krzych32]

debt has nothing to do with this. Again, we pay them that much because we believe their skills are worth it, this is how you get best people for the job into that job in any industry.

[Deleted]

Nov 6, 2010 18:02:55 GMT -5 krzych32 said:

debt has nothing to do with this. Again, we pay them that much because we believe their skills are worth it, this is how you get best people for the job into that job in any industry.

UPDATE: This also makes me think, I wouldn't want (for example) my doctor to be doing his job solely because of the money... I wouldn't trust him...

[qooqǝɯɐƃ]

Nov 6, 2010 16:16:29 GMT -5 marypo said:

Nov 6, 2010 0:55:45 GMT -5 qooqǝɯɐƃ said:

All I'm saying is that money should not be an incentive if you want good politics. And it's not like doctors aren't trying to get patients into the OR for expensive surgeries. It's all about the money in America.

Everyone needs to make a living. How could we expect a dedicated professional if they had to work a job on the side?

Why would you assume that I mean to not even pay them enough to even sustain themselves? A salary of 80-$100,000 is fair imo, not in the hundreds of thousands. But that's it, it's just my opinion. Anyone care to share theirs? No one else is responding to the OP.

[Deleted]

Nov 6, 2010 19:37:40 GMT -5 qooqǝɯɐƃ said:

Anyone care to share theirs? No one else is responding to the OP.

Ok. In my point of view, a political system must provide people with a good live, or at least the chance of having a good life. This is the most important thing, and it might include several underlying factors (in no specific order):

• Health
• Safety
• Freedom
• Education
• Home
• etc...

Notice these factors are not equally important. Some are more important than others, and what matters is making a good compromise between these (I for example, find health and education far more important than other factors, although I still find them all important nonetheless).

For this, I like political systems that try to provide a good life for people. People means everybody, and I think no law should be made that hinders most people in benefit of a random person without no good underlying reason.

For now you certainly have noticed I certainly don't like conservatism, as it tries to hinder people's education, health and freedom (from my point of view). I also don't like libertarianism, as I see corporation's freedom as hindering people's well being (and own freedom too) (trough things like monopolies, almost monopolies, or just abusive work ethics).

So I'm directed more to things like socialist political systems, as these try to provide the maximum of well being to people. Although I do also find all of these systems I talked about so far awfully flawed, even the one I can say I agree with the most.

About dream like systems, I really like the idea supported by The Venus Project, which I tried to start a discussion a long time ago in here. krzych32 certainly doesn't like this system, as it attempts to remove what they believe to be something prejudicial: money and bartering altogether. They believe that we have the capabilities to make responsible use of our resources and provide them to everybody without anything in return if we eliminate the profit factor and have a massive change on mentality. I must admit, I like that system.

[low]

Regulated-capitalist-social-constitutional-representative-democracy with a solid protection of civil liberties via due process clauses. Denmark-ish.

[krzych32]

hehe radicallyblue already knows what I was about to say.

[qooqǝɯɐƃ]

Yea I had a thread on the Venus Project a long time ago. It didn't get much notice, except from the skeptical people.

I'd like to see it in action though, I just don't think it could work. We just can't act like our resources are infinite. The labour could be done by robots, sure, but I think we would run out of metal, since it seems to be used a lot in the diagrams depicting the society. I'm sure we could run entirely on completely renewable energy, though.

I know there are other problems, I'm just drawing a blank since it's been a while...

[krzych32]

Gameboob, I don't think you understand the laws of supply and demand. We will NEVER run out of metals. Just like any other resource, metals would become more and more expensive untill a cheaper alternative would replace it.

[Deleted]

Nov 7, 2010 23:10:26 GMT -5 krzych32 said:

Gameboob, I don't think you understand the laws of supply and demand. We will NEVER run out of metals. Just like any other resource, metals would become more and more expensive untill a cheaper alternative would replace it.

And you don't understand the Venus Project, which also includes eliminating supply and demand, as itself is also a flawed concept nowadays (according to what the Venus Project people believe in) (I also must empathize: nowadays, not in the past but today, currently, in these last decades/centuries, after the industrial revolution made the "laws" of supply and demand more virtual than ever).

Gameboob, the idea behind the Venus Project is that all materials used so far would last much longer, and those which were not used anymore would be recycled. 100% of them. This would not make our resources infinite, but ironically, it would make people have much more access to resources while also extending the amount of time we have these resources comparing with how they are managed currently.

The biggest problem I can imagine with the Venus Project is the radical change in mentality necessary for it to work. Oh, and also the incredible fight which will exist against it.

[hobo8675309]

I identify as a die-hard social democrat. You see, it is my belief that the capitalist system of free enterprise cannot sustain itself wihtout devolving into somewhat of a post-capitalist kleptocracy. On the other hand, the same can be said of communism, it simply ends in a corrupt administration run by the desire to obtain capital. While social democracy is what I believe to be a reasonable and effective way to govern humanely, what is more important than the actual political system is the political competence of the society that supports it. If this is true, then life is really gonna suck in a couple dozen years, because the new generation has absolutely no political competence.

There are only four United States politicians whom I aprrove of. The first and foremost is Ryan Sanders, a man who ran in the election for Pennsylvania representative in the most recent midterm, because I feel like he is the only politician with a platform that supports eliminating government waste (as opposed to pretending to eliminate government "waste" by cutting spening on fundemental programs such as social security and technological funding, which is what the tea party does) and still manage his state responsibly. The second politician whom I approve of is Ron Paul, because even though I disagree with him on economic and domestic policy, he is an excellent guy who has potential to reduce the budget deficit. Then, there is Bernie Sander, the senator from Vermont, who attracted a hell of a lot attention recently when he spoke out against the Obama tax cut "compromise". He is a social democrat, but unlike many of his comrades, he cares deeply about eliminating the national debt for the win. Is Ralph Nader a politican? If so, he is also one that I approve, because he is just a rad guy, willing to speak outagainst the system and not afraid to take unpopular action against a broken system.

Some things I would like to see removed from the system are the electoral college, tax cuts for the wealthy and middle class, strictly bipartisan politics, and wages for politicians.

[qooqǝɯɐƃ]

Dec 20, 2010 18:12:46 GMT -5 hobo8675309 said:

what is more important than the actual political system is the political competence of the society that supports it. If this is true, then life is really gonna suck in a couple dozen years, because the new generation has absolutely no political competence.

No kidding. In an introduction to a version of Plato's Republic, the translator writes:

What then are Plato's criticisms in the Republic? . . . First that the people are bad judges in many political matters. The common man has no experience or expert knowledge of such things as foreign policy or economics, and to expect any very sensible judgment from him on such matters is to expect the impossible. He will judge in impulse, sentiment or prejudice, and though his heart may be sound (and Plato would have doubted whether even this was always true) his head would be muddled. This drawback may perhaps be overcome by good leadership. But here we come to the second criticism, that democracy encourages bad leadership. The people's judgement of their leaders is not always good, and they can't be trusted to make the best choice. But quite apart from that, the popular leader, as dependent as he is for his position (and perhaps his income) on popular favour, will constantly be tempted to retain that favour by the easiest possible means. He will play on the likes and dislikes, the weaknesses and the foibles of the public, will never tell them an unpleasant truth or advocate a policy that might make them uncomfortable. Like the modern advertiser and salesman, he is dependent on his public, and his position depends on selling them comfort and not telling them the truth.

That pretty much details the problems with democracy, however in our day there is better access to this knowledge and more people posses it today than the citizens of Greek societies did 2500 years ago. Although the question is, do enough people understand politics to choose the correct leader? And I'd agree with you Hobo, that no, not enough people in our day understand politics as well as what's needed. And that responsibility falls on the school system of the country...

Dec 20, 2010 18:12:46 GMT -5 hobo8675309 said:

Some things I would like to see removed from the system are the electoral college, tax cuts for the wealthy and middle class, strictly bipartisan politics, and wages for politicians.

I agree with you on the tax cuts and bipartisan politics. I mean it's outdated, if it was ever enough to properly describe a politician. I mean I have views on different topics that make me a liberal or libertarian or even a conservative... So to split up politicians into only two main parties that stand a chance of getting elected can be restrictive.

And I think I agree with you on the wages for politicians, although it sounds like you're saying they shouldn't get paid. IMO they should only get paid an average salary, say ~$75,000. Although it's also important that there be strict and well enforced laws on kickbacks and bribes for politicians that sway their opinions in favour of whomever can pay them off.