Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Best form of Government

Posted Mar 3, '13 at 3:25pm

blk2860

blk2860

10,796 posts

I would say Republic. I mean look at China, what with the strongest military currently on Earth. Look at Rome, one of the strongest armies ever on Earth. Obviously a Republic would be superior. Voting will almost always lead to problems. I mean, sometime most of the population is incredibly stupid. Besides, sometimes they'll believe just what the people say.

 

Posted Mar 3, '13 at 3:30pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,728 posts

Knight

Determinism isn't necessarily total.. and it leads to the idea that some people are criminals no matter what. Same as what former French president Sarkozy once alluded about the jobless, something like they're lazy by nature/genetics and thus we shouldn't pay them money... I find such ideas repugnant. It's just probabilities, but that doesn't excuse the actual act (for criminals), nor does it justify leaving people to their "fate".

That's what I've always used to believe, but people like NoName made me a lot more cautious about things like that. If someone put together any huge fortune without doing anything illegal or immoral, it might not be fair to take it away from him against his will, and it probably isn't if that means treating them in a different way than everyone else, like with a progressive taxation, or a tax on huge capitals. Same reasoning for trying to cap salaries.

That would be true if everyone would get their money in a similar way. But when CEOs give themselves huge bonuses that could probably double the lowest revenues of all their employees, I have absolutely no qualms about treating them differently if the result is a more reasonable situation (they'll still be better paid, but not disproportionally so).

Heritage control on the other hand does not take away anything you own. It sounds an extremistic solution but from some points of view it's less brutal than normal taxation.

Again, what about last wishes? If the deceased uttered the wish before death to spend half of their wealth on some wellfare organisation? You gonna take that away to pay a second car to state employees?
 

Posted Mar 3, '13 at 4:50pm

gaboloth

gaboloth

1,634 posts

Determinism isn't necessarily total.. and it leads to the idea that some people are criminals no matter what. Same as what former French president Sarkozy once alluded about the jobless, something like they're lazy by nature/genetics and thus we shouldn't pay them money... I find such ideas repugnant. It's just probabilities, but that doesn't excuse the actual act (for criminals), nor does it justify leaving people to their "fate".

Well, my reasonment is different from Sarkozy's one: the premises are different and the conclusion is opposite. I don't believe that there is a laziness gene that marks your existence from the day you were born, just that there is no free will involved in the process that determines your laziness (and that is because I don't believe free will exists at all, for that see the reasonment I posted in the last page). And more importantly, from this starting point I get the conclusion that it would be the most fair to treat everyone exactly the same, since everyone is nothing but what he was destined to be, and it doesn't make sense to reward people who did a better job if there was no free will involved in what they did. It's like praising someone for an unvolontary action. Sarkozy's conclusion, on the other hand, is born, beside the predestination belief, from the conviction to be able to judge whether a person is/is destined to become lazy, which comes from his idea of a genetic curse but hasn't a lot to do with my own.

Again, what about last wishes? If the deceased uttered the wish before death to spend half of their wealth on some wellfare organisation? You gonna take that away to pay a second car to state employees?


That's a lot of cinism, a well running socialist state is supposed to be about the same level of a welfare association. I'm not that convinced about the importance of last wishes, either. While NoName was right about the freedom to give out property to whomever one wants, that freedom loses a lot of its meaningfulness when the person is dead. This might sound cold hearted, but not respecting a dead man's wishes is not going to hurt him as when he was alive. The offense can only go to his close ones indirectly, but not being the concerned ones, they can probably accept it if it's for a greater cause.
But yes, this is definitely a weak spot in my idea.
 

Posted Mar 3, '13 at 5:13pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,728 posts

Knight

You're taking equal treatment to a whole new level, does it still hold room for individuality? What you're saying is, no matter what you do, you should get the same amount of money from the state. I think it would be better to say, give everyone a reasonable minimum payment, no matter what they do; and allow others to work harder for more money. As long as it stays reasonable. In that case, the others have done nothing to earn a part of the rich one's wealth.

Cynicism, yes, but not that far from reality as you may think. Now not all governments are like that, luckily; but still many individuals at high places, also in politics, create a sort of bubble around them, impervious to reality. Seems like a not so rare thing to happen. As such, I see it as a gain to diversity of funds to let people distribute their amount of society's wealth as they wish.

Concerning dead people's will, of course I'm not insinuating that their wishes are holy by any means. But it is a matter of respect for them and their family. And I feel that respect is more important for social structures than enforcing total equality on the back of individuals.

 

Posted Mar 3, '13 at 6:09pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,475 posts

give everyone a reasonable minimum payment

That minimum payment becomes the new 0 and devalues anything above it.
 

Posted Mar 4, '13 at 3:40am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,728 posts

Knight

That minimum payment becomes the new 0 and devalues anything above it.

I'm not sure if I follow your thought there... I mean there IS a difference if the new zero allows people to live away from street and poverty.
You mean instead of demonstrating for justice, they'll start demonstrating because they want gold lamborginis too? Wouldn't that be a bit... petty?
 

Posted Mar 4, '13 at 11:40am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,475 posts

I mean that if everyone has something, no one does. The prices would become inflated to adjust for the increase. They still won't be off the streets if rent goes up everywhere.

 

Posted Mar 4, '13 at 2:53pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,728 posts

Knight

But not everyone would have the same amount; by giving minimum wage, I'm not saying paying everyone the same max sum. Of course the main weak point of this is that the money has to come somewhere; but assuming once the state got money for that, they don't have to pay things like unemployment compensation, and the people's spending capacity is generally enhanced, profiting the economy.

 

Posted Mar 5, '13 at 12:48am

BrolyLSSJ5

BrolyLSSJ5

5 posts

I know we should "keep it real", but if really want to figure out the "best" form of government, you need to start thinking outside of the box. Take a look at "The Venus Project" for instance.

 

Posted Mar 5, '13 at 4:33am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,814 posts

Knight

I mean that if everyone has something, no one does. The prices would become inflated to adjust for the increase. They still won't be off the streets if rent goes up everywhere.


The problem is the cost of living does and has gone up while the minimum hourly pay has not kept up with that increase. So in a way that "0" is more like a "negative 3" or something. Basically someone would need to meet the living wage, which is about $10-13 an hour for a single individual.
http://livingwage.mit.edu/
 
Reply to Best form of Government

You must be logged in to post a reply!