FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.
PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all of the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.
BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and put them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you need.
FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them and sells you the milk.
PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.
RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.
CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both of them and shoots you.
DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.
PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.
BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.
PURE ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.
LIBERTARIAN/ANARCHO-CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.
I think at least a few of them are somewhat accurate (even though simplified), and just wanted to put it up here. I'm sure some sort of discussion or general amusement or something can ensue.
Individuals don't have a say whatsoever in a democracy. You need a group of people with the same opinion before you get to make that decision. One vote don't make a difference. A bunch of votes for the same thing does. One should vote to add to that pile, hoping that enough others support it too. But the individual vote means very little on its own.
Of course individuals have a say in a democracy. What about systems of proportional representation? Every single vote counts.
I actually meant all the way down to as small groups as families. And I did say occasionally. Most often it fails, but on RARE occasions, people actually like helping each other out and only getting the same in return.
Small groups as families wouldn't really be pure communism. Communism isn't gettng the same as everyone else. Each according to their needs.
It seems you misunderstood my post. I know how a representative democracy works, I live in a country with one...
I understand your point, however under systems of proportional representation, parties receive seats on the exact % of votes they got. Under this system many minority parties get in, so there is no such thing as a wasted vote.
I understand your point, however under systems of proportional representation, parties receive seats on the exact % of votes they got. Under this system many minority parties get in, so there is no such thing as a wasted vote.
One person votes for the Chuck Norris Party, and 299,999,999 don't. The Chuck Norris Party will not have a representative because that small of a fraction is rounded to zero.
omg that is too funny...probably true about all of it. i especially like the Russian communism and the bureaucracy and surrealism one. i must say that Libertarian/anarcho-capitalism seemed like the best one.
One person votes for the Chuck Norris Party, and 299,999,999 don't. The Chuck Norris Party will not have a representative because that small of a fraction is rounded to zero.
My point is that under a PR system minority parties are much more likely to get some seats.
I understand your point, however under systems of proportional representation, parties receive seats on the exact % of votes they got. Under this system many minority parties get in, so there is no such thing as a wasted vote.
I never meant to say that votes are wasted. Just that individual votes only have a tiny impact. As stated by the Chuck Norris example...
What a wonderful representation! Cheery, funny, and boiled down to farm animals so little kiddies can understand it. A good deal of it has truth to it, but obviously this isn't intended to be a serious assessment of these systems. It looks like in each one, the group that benefits the most is the government!
My 7th grade social studies teacher had these in his class room and explained them all. It was pretty effective in teaching us different forms of government actually.
