We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Best form of Government
| 141 | 22809 |
What is your opinion on the best form of government?
Most of us live in a democratic society, but there are many who are of the mind of Monarchy, Communism, or otherwise..
What do you think?
- 141 Replies
Well, as I already said, I think the equality you're thinking of can be achieved by regular taxes already,
I don't think it can... because taxes just take away from what you earn, but they won't help equalizing starting conditions. Both can be considered right or wrong, but equal conditions are composed of two things: decent public services, and no elite private services. Taxes can help build the first, but they can't ensure the second. Inheritance control ensures the second while still maintaining some respect for what one earned, and it further helps with the first.
Also, I see that no one commented anymore on the family bonds topic, does that mean I've actually convinced you guys? Doesn't sound too likely... :P
OP, you are asking people's OPINION on what should be the BEST form of government. That seems like an oxymoron to me.
So, you would like to know the best... but wait a minute, what is "best" ? Best for a criminal psycho or best for a good, honest human? My guess is that you want to know what is best for us humans to live a healthy and a good life in general.
Well you should ask yourself: do humans need a government? Why we have one to begin with? What is the purpose of a government and in what way it affects our life? So you see, the key is to ask the right question.
You seem to be picturing an awkward system where all colleges are independent private structures, but the state pays the expenses for you. I don't know if this is obvious or not, but by "ublic college" I mean a structure that is not only paid, but also managed by the state, so that it can improve itself without a logic of profit, but to serve the people better. I don't know if this is foreign to american mindset or what, but I thought it was a pretty normal thing?
Sorry, but government programs have a near infinite source of funds. It is literally, nearly impossible, for them to know whether they're being as efficient as possible or not. When you get a set amount of money from taxes, you don't really know if you're paying too much for goods or services or not.
Do you want to know what a state run college would be like? It would be whatever the people in charge thing it should be like. The people have no say. If the people feel the college isn't efficient, guess what! They're screwed. They have no alternatives. They can't start a more efficient educational system because it will cost people money to go to their private colleges, whereas the inefficient state colleges are free.
You have this idea that the government can decide what the most efficient method of business is. It can't because the model in which we measure efficiency literally doesn't exist for government funded projects!
If you're going to answer, "no, we have free will" please explain why you think that, don't just say "no, we have free will".
The whole, "we only have the illusion of choice" bit.
So I'm not saying a lazy boy will necessarily become a lazy man. I'm just saying that the lazy boy who became a lazy man was never really given the choice to become otherwise when he met the two divergent paths, and the lazy boy who became a hard working man didn't choose right when he met the paths, he followed the only path he could possibly have followed.
Wrong. I want you to hold up 3 fingers. Do it, right now.
Did you do it? Whatever you did, you chose. That's free will. If you felt you were destined to do one, then I literally can't argue against that. I can't disprove a negative. It would be like finding proof as to how God doesn't exist as an omnipotent, omnipresent, being.
But if you believe people don't have a real choice, and therefore they should not only be forgiven but cared for, then why don't we have this mentality for murderers and r-pists? Those people had the choice not to murder, or r-pe, we shouldn't punish them!
Where's the natural phenomena?
If I'm born with rich parents and you're born with poor parents, you assume there is injustice in that. But I'm not the one who made you poor, so how am I guilty of injustice? Why am I being punished? Why would my parents be punished? They have money to pass on to me and you were born poor, it's not their fault. They aren't the cause.
You probably was expecting me to say "hey, but the average is 25!" and then answer "there are administrative expenses", but even taking that into consideration, the point doesn't apply to the more realistic situation of 100, 10, 5, 5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1.
You would prefer everyone be at 1.
Instead of focusing on how we lower 100, or 10, we should focus on how to raise the 1s.
That's not a very meaningful comparison, because it doesn't make sense to associate the victim of the murder to the heir. In heritage, the victim is the one who didn't inherit anything, surely not the heir.
How in the world can you be so wrong?
I mean, you're wrong. This is so incredibly hard to explain, because I couldn't have been more clear before. How is it even more possible for me to be clear?
In heritage, the victim is the one who didn't inherit anything, surely not the heir.
If I inherit my fathers wealth, were you a victim? NO. BY EVERY CONCEIVABLE WORD THAT SHOULD NOT BE SAID ON THIS SITE, NO. NO. NO.
NO.
MY DAD BOUGHT ME AN XBOX! YOU'RE A VICTIM. YOU DIDN'T GET AN XBOX! HOLY CRAP!
You are NOT a victim when you don't inherit wealth. Why? It's NOT YOUR PROPERTY. IT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE DECEASED. IT IS THEIR POSSESSION TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH IT.
ITS NOT YOURS.
The reason you're wrong, and the reason why I am completely frustrated is because you feel entitled to that money.
The forcing part only applies to underage people, which, after all, are "taken care of" in today's society as well.
Even if technically adults could refuse the help from the government, they're still being forced to pay the government. Not only that, but the government owns a monopoly, meaning there are no other alternatives. This is what I don't get about socialists. They complain about corporate monopolies that either don't actually exist or exist due to government giving them special privileges, yet they support government monopoly.
---
Do you not see what you're doing? You're taking a dangerous idea and turning it into something that's essentially a religion!
You believe humans can NOT control their fate. Their actions are essentially predetermined. Because people don't have free will, they need a God to take care of them. Oh wait, sorry, GOVERNMENT. They need an all knowing government to take care of them.
Yes, I'm comparing it to religion. You believe free will doesn't exist, therefore we need government that is somehow immune to determinism, or error. This is religion.
Do you want to know what a state run college would be like? It would be whatever the people in charge thing it should be like. The people have no say.
This is what I don't get about socialists. They complain about corporate monopolies that either don't actually exist or exist due to government giving them special privileges, yet they support government monopoly.
The difference between a corporate monopoly and a state monopoly is that the second is managed through a democratic process, by the people. It doesn't work as well as it could in today's democracies, but there's no reason why it can't.
Did you do it? Whatever you did, you chose. That's free will. If you felt you were destined to do one, then I literally can't argue against that. I can't disprove a negative. It would be like finding proof as to how God doesn't exist as an omnipotent, omnipresent, being.
I didn't do it, and I don't think I had any chance to do it. But yes, it's impossible to argue about our different feelings of choice, so you can go ahead and tell me what is wrong with this reasoning:
Matter moves necessarily in the way the preexisting causes entail
The brain's structure can be broken down to prime elements, so it can be considered matter (I thought it would be safe to assume that you don't believe in any incorporeal soul)
=> The brain acts necessarily in the way the preexisting causes entail
But if you believe people don't have a real choice, and therefore they should not only be forgiven but cared for, then why don't we have this mentality for murderers and r-pists? Those people had the choice not to murder, or r-pe, we shouldn't punish them!
Yes! Nice to see we think alike.
No punishment doesn't mean no penalty, though, because penalty has two other important functions, beside legalized revenge that does nothing but harm to the society: first, it can be used to physically prevent someone to commit another crime, second, it can cause a fear that can avoid more crimes in the future. The last point's morality is arguable, but neither is in contradiction with determinism.
You believe humans can NOT control their fate. Their actions are essentially predetermined. Because people don't have free will, they need a God to take care of them. Oh wait, sorry, GOVERNMENT. They need an all knowing government to take care of them.
Yes, I'm comparing it to religion. You believe free will doesn't exist, therefore we need government that is somehow immune to determinism, or error. This is religion.
Not sure where you got this from. The government isn't there because it's immune to determinism (how can it be?), it's just a way to prevent the injustice of heritage. Determinism is one of the things that make heritage an injustice, but the government is there to fight heritage and injustice, not determinism.
No punishment doesn't mean no penalty, though, because penalty has two other important functions, beside legalized revenge that does nothing but harm to the society: first, it can be used to physically prevent someone to commit another crime, second, it can cause a fear that can avoid more crimes in the future. The last point's morality is arguable, but neither is in contradiction with determinism.
What exactly is the difference between punishment and penalty in your case?
About the second point, is it morally arguable to try and prevent harm to be done? If you let criminals run free without arresting them, they will never learn. If you arrest them, there's a small chance they will think twice, chance which is increased if you add a therapy to the imprisonment. Of course you have to avoid resentment that will make things only worse, so prisoners shouldn't exactly be mistreated.
Determinism is one of the things that make heritage an injustice, but the government is there to fight heritage and injustice, not determinism.
People will never be really equal. Think of genetics, that can influence your life in a social community and thus your well-being and status. Think of the environmental restrictions depending on where people live. Is it really such an injustice to inherit more money than others from your parents, as long as all others live fairly well?
If your dad worked really hard and earned a lot of money, technically with his performances and the paid taxes he already contributes more to society than others. What he can keep, is his money. his own, personal money. I don't see why society should claim this for itself too. You see, the problem is not that inheritance is an injustice. The problem is that people that should contribute, often don't, see tax evasions etc. I often hear that if everyone would pay the taxes they should, in the actual system, we could solve pretty much all problems. THIS is the real injustice.
What exactly is the difference between punishment and penalty in your case?
I meant penalty as generally any action taken towards the criminal, and punishment as penalty that is aimed to that kind of "revenge" I was talking about. For example, if you sentence a thief to imprisonment thinking "he stole someone's stuff, he is a bad person and he deserves to suffer locked in a cell for some time", that's punishment, and that makes no sense from my point of view. If you do the same thinking "we can't let him go around freely or he will do more harm to other people" you're still issuing penalty, but without the aim of punishment. (bad explanation, I know...)
About the second point, is it morally arguable to try and prevent harm to be done? If you let criminals run free without arresting them, they will never learn. If you arrest them, there's a small chance they will think twice, chance which is increased if you add a therapy to the imprisonment. Of course you have to avoid resentment that will make things only worse, so prisoners shouldn't exactly be mistreated.
What I find arguable about it is the idea of making the world a better place using fear. But yes, in a realistic world it's probably unavoidable.
If your dad worked really hard and earned a lot of money, technically with his performances and the paid taxes he already contributes more to society than others. What he can keep, is his money. his own, personal money. I don't see why society should claim this for itself too.
I would interpret this in the opposite way. If you tax his money, you are building equality, but you're also taking away from him his own property. Taking away from the heritage doesn't have that problem, because he is pretty much dead at that point, so I can't see why you say that he should be able to keep his own personal money when he is already dead. Plus of course it helps mending an injustice. Even if the injustice was as small as you said, it would be still worth it to mend it with heritage control, since to me it seems even more acceptable, from the "don't take me away my own property" point of view.
The problem is that people that should contribute, often don't, see tax evasions etc. I often hear that if everyone would pay the taxes they should, in the actual system, we could solve pretty much all problems. THIS is the real injustice.
That IS an injustice, and, if we judge basing to italian tax evasion statistics and stereotypes about Swiss people, I should be MUCH more concerned about it than you. Still, I think that, even without evasion, taxes alone would get pretty far from an ideal of absolute equality, much farther than what inheritance control could do.
So in essence, punishment and penalizement just differentiates the motivation? So the outcome is the same.
What I find arguable about it is the idea of making the world a better place using fear. But yes, in a realistic world it's probably unavoidable.
I'm not sure fear is consciously used as a tool to prevent crimes. In a society with laws, it is normal that law breaks are penalized. The fear of the consequences comes from the individual and is already there before the crime, although maybe not fully conscious in some.
I'm still not convinced about the inheritance stuff. It's been interesting to debate as I never actually thought about it (except for why inheritance tax is such a stupid thing), but I still don't see why society has any claim on the fortune of the deceased. Regular taxes are taken from the wealth while still living, that is true, but that's only a part, and it's the contribution we all have to make. Taking away inheritance takes away ALL of what's left, and ignores the dead's last wills. Remember not all parents will give everything to their kids.
I do think that we don't need more taxes, we should just enforce correct payment more strictly. A big injustice will also be fought against once bonus payments of CEOs stop to be several times the actual salary (they will then of course raise the salary as a counter-measure but at least it's labelled as salary, which offers a platform for the next steps). As such, I find that taking away the fortune once it's acquired (heritage) kinda shoots past the goal; limiting the possibilities of such fortunes amassing to begin with sounds more reasonable for a point of attack.
So in essence, punishment and penalizement just differentiates the motivation? So the outcome is the same.
Pretty much, yes. The choice of words wasn't great because "unishment" is used both in the negative sense I meant and in the neutral sense I gave to "enalty". Going back to the original context, determinism means that there is no reason to resent the criminals, but there still are other reasons to pu... argh, I mean, to penalize them, like, as I said, to prevent him or other people to commit more crimes.
limiting the possibilities of such fortunes amassing to begin with sounds more reasonable for a point of attack.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
give everyone a reasonable minimum payment
That minimum payment becomes the new 0 and devalues anything above it.
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?
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.
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.
You must be logged in to post a reply!