News How do we reform the US political system to put leaders in office

  • Thread starter Thread starter Skyhunter
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    System
AI Thread Summary
Reforming the US political system requires addressing the motivations behind civic engagement and leadership. The proposal suggests making suffrage a privilege earned through community service, which could encourage more responsible and involved citizens to participate in governance. Concerns are raised about the influence of corporate lobbying and the need for corporations to serve the public good, with suggestions for stricter accountability measures. The discussion highlights the dysfunctionality of the current system, particularly the challenges faced by new political ideas and parties in a bi-party dominated landscape. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the importance of civic responsibility and ethical governance in creating effective leadership.
  • #101
vanesch said:
This is normal: in a capitalist system, everything to pertaining to violence (weapons, army etc...and even the taxes that finance it) are put in common.
In the US you are permitted to own various weapons with very little difficulty. Are you saying that private ownership of this paticular piece of property is un-capitalistic? :confused:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
DM said:
Gross domestic product. :biggrin:
Ah... good one. :smile:
 
  • #103
vanesch said:
There was maybe capitalism BETWEEN states then, no. But ok, I never said that there was never anything ELSE but (practical) capitalism. I just contered the claim that capitalism didn't exist before Adam Smith. The *ideology* of capitalism (the belief that everything goes for the best) didn't exist, that is correct. And the *ideal* capitalism of that ideology didn't exist and still doesn't exist. But practically, it did, of course.
I think you are equating Capitalism with your idea of Freedom a little too closely.

(wikipedia's daily featured article is anarcho-capitalism today :biggrin: - you should read it, it will really clear some things up about both Anarchism and Capitalism I think. - most anarchists don't recognize anarcho-capitalism as being a flavor of anarchism) I'd like to know if you think what you're calling capitalism right now is more closely related to anarcho-capitalism.
 
Last edited:
  • #104
Smurf said:
In the US you are permitted to own various weapons with very little difficulty. Are you saying that private ownership of this paticular piece of property is un-capitalistic? :confused:

In a way, yes. Everything pertaining to violence is mutualised in capitalism. If not, you're back to the law of the jungle. But again, it is not these small deviations which make you decide whether a society is capitalist or not. Western societies are mainly capitalist, with some socialism and some law of the jungle.
 
  • #105
Smurf said:
I think you are equating Capitalism with your idea of Freedom a little too closely.

(wikipedia's daily featured article is anarcho-capitalism today :biggrin: - you should read it, it will really clear some things up about both Anarchism and Capitalism I think. - most anarchists don't recognize anarcho-capitalism as being a flavor of anarchism) I'd like to know if you think what you're calling capitalism right now is more closely related to anarcho-capitalism.

I read the article on wiki :smile:. It helps me getting my semantics right.
I think that anarcho-capitalism is some "ideal" form of capitalism where everything is ruled by ownership and private initiative, but so idealised that it ruins itself. Normally, in capitalism, you delegate violence to the state. But it suffers from exactly the same flaw as all other flavors of anarchism: if you have no superstructure FORCING THIS UPON PEOPLE then it won't happen that way. You will simply go back to the law of the jungle.

I mean, it is very nice to say how PEOPLE OUGHT TO BEHAVE, but if you do not force such behaviour upon them by the means of force, then they won't necessarily behave as you think, prefer or anything. I'm a believer in hedonism, in that I think that the search for pleasure and the avoidance of suffering are the only motives for the behaviour of people. If you want to instore certain behaviours, you have to do it that way: by making them enjoy pleasure when they do what you want, and/or by making them suffer when they don't do what you want. There's no other way. Contracts, agreements, laws, property and all that ONLY MAKE SENSE if they are enforced with violence. You cannot posit by axiom that people "ought not to be violent to each other" for instance. That doesn't work. They only won't be violent if they know that they will loose on the pleasure/suffering balance in doing so.
"Individual freedom" is simply the amount of decisions you are allowed to take for yourself in the frame of this seeking of optimisation on the pleasure/suffering balance. Your freedom is only total when the law of the jungle is valid. In capitalism, it is total except for two points: you're not allowed to use violence, and you're not allowed to steal (in the broad sense of breaking contracts). All other actions are free.

So OR you have a superstructure which has "the monopoly of violence" (enforces by the use of superior violence non-violent behaviour between its members = police force) - from which moment on, you can decide whatever other behaviour is to be enforced or not, and whatever economical system you want to use or not ; OR you don't have such a superstructure, and then you will have potentially violent behaviour between members, groups of members etc... dictated by their individual perception of whether or not they will gain on the pleasure/suffering balance ; and you cannot impose whatever society you want. Without ANY superstructure (= state) no other behaviour can be imposed, especially not the rule that members should NOT get together to create such a structure.
And this is the essential instability I was pointing out since the beginning in anarchism.
 
Last edited:
  • #106
What's the difference between Capitalism and what you call "law of the jungle?"
 
  • #107
Smurf said:
What's the difference between Capitalism and what you call "law of the jungle?"

Physical violence. You do what I say because otherwise I beat you up and I am stronger, or have friends which are stronger than your friends. I can even kill you, I only need to find the way to do so. Your friends might then try to kill me - or not - depending on what they think is more advantageous for them. Nowhere to complain, no judges, no laws, no police. The natural way of things.
 
  • #108
vanesch said:
Physical violence. You do what I say because otherwise I beat you up and I am stronger, or have friends which are stronger than your friends. I can even kill you, I only need to find the way to do so. Your friends might then try to kill me - or not - depending on what they think is more advantageous for them. Nowhere to complain, no judges, no laws, no police. The natural way of things.
How is that any different than any state on earth? I could kill you Vanesch, I just need to find a way to do it. That, and I'd need to want to in the first place.
 
  • #109
Smurf said:
How is that any different than any state on earth? I could kill you Vanesch, I just need to find a way to do it.

Well, my main motivation not to kill others is that it would put me in trouble with justice. Without a state, there is no justice department, there are only those who cared about the one I'd kill, and if I esteem that not much of a problem, I can go ahead and not be disturbed.
 
  • #110
So, here is how 'we' of the also on average, average populace, fix this; 'we' magically warp into an informed, educated, intelligent, reasonable electorate, as oppoised to an 'average' electorate, and we insist on populating not only the top spots, but every level of government with only the best and the brightest and the most capable. We will create the raw fodder for this miraculous transformation of government by demanding more of our kids when we expensively send them off for a free education, so when they emerge, they will form not only a broad foundation to people this massive government that some believe can bandage every skinned knee imaginable under any scenario, but form that informed electorate as well.

Of course, until we do that, we get what we get; on average, some tiny fraction of a led around by the nose electorate playing their part in our silly assed Circus elections, anointing some poor bastard to ride around in the bullet-proof limo and manage a massive organization of 'on average' human beings, subject to the same distribution of corruption and incompetence and indecision and fear and ineptitude as the population at large.

Who the Hell are we kidding? When was this not ever so, and when will it not ever be?

Politics in this nation has seldom elevated itself above the absurd, and we will always pay a price for that. Indeed, even if we could agree on that non-partisan statement, our politics immediately prevent us from agreeing on the fundamental 'why.'

You see, way more than just half of us fundamentally believe that the solution just waiting around the corner is 'the' ultimate leader who will show up and ride around in that bullet proof limo and magically, maybe with a handful of his closest cronies, run the world in such a manner that we can do whatever the Hell we want to do and still never suffer from so much as a skinned knee.

In fact, sadly, the number is probably much higher than 50%, and increasingly spans both parties of power. The only difference between these two competing camps of children looking for a Maximum Daddy is whether they want a GOP Daddy or a Democratic Daddy.

Somewhere out there, lost in the wilderness of irrelevance, is some tiny fraction of folks who still see this Universe as a place that requires constant uphill strain, and the best source of power for that constant strain is always close at hand and not somebody else's job, and certainly not in the singular set of hands of whoever is riding either the local, the parish, the state or the federal version of the bullet proof limo. It doesn't need to be everybody, because everybody never happens, but if enough folks had enough of that inside them, then no matter if they found themselves staffing some bureacracy in a city, a parish, a state, or federal government, they would not be frozen by an overbearing pall of safely waiting to be told what to do by Daddy, where real people are overwhelmed by the Universe and its sometimes too much to bear local gradients. You see, by definition, if we had enough of that kind of energy and initiative, then the gov't that we say we want to primarily depend on would be able to direct its massive resources in an effective manner, and could weather greater events without being overwhelmed.

The majority will win the shaping of this debate, and we will all live or die with their decision. If the net result of this cataclysmic event is, "we must demand/rely even more on a centralized gov't to save every rainy day," and we do so without providing the fodder to feed such a miraculous bee colony plan of action, then IMO, we will experience ever more grinding of gears/failures of the Grand Plan with every succeeding generation, as unrealistic expectations fuel an ever more disgruntled electorate, waiting for someone to show up and be their Daddy, and not only ytell them what needs to be done to wrap their World in Nerf, but actually do it for them.
 
  • #111
Zlex said:
So, here is how 'we' of the also on average, average populace, fix this; 'we' magically warp into an informed, educated, intelligent, reasonable electorate, as oppoised to an 'average' electorate, and we insist on populating not only the top spots, but every level of government with only the best and the brightest and the most capable. We will create the raw fodder for this miraculous transformation of government by demanding more of our kids when we expensively send them off for a free education, so when they emerge, they will form not only a broad foundation to people this massive government that some believe can bandage every skinned knee imaginable under any scenario, but form that informed electorate as well.

Of course, until we do that, we get what we get; on average, some tiny fraction of a led around by the nose electorate playing their part in our silly assed Circus elections, anointing some poor bastard to ride around in the bullet-proof limo and manage a massive organization of 'on average' human beings, subject to the same distribution of corruption and incompetence and indecision and fear and ineptitude as the population at large.

Who the Hell are we kidding? When was this not ever so, and when will it not ever be?

Politics in this nation has seldom elevated itself above the absurd, and we will always pay a price for that. Indeed, even if we could agree on that non-partisan statement, our politics immediately prevent us from agreeing on the fundamental 'why.'
The purpose of this thread is to offer solutions to the problems you are describing. Most on this forum already realize the dysfunctionality of our political system.

What I am looking for is ideas, not rants. Jeez, I have enough of my own I don't need yours as well. :wink:
 
  • #112
Skyhunter said:
What I am looking for is ideas, not rants. Jeez, I have enough of my own I don't need yours as well. :wink:

The rant was well-written, wasn't it ? I enjoyed it. But it also contains a "solution". Hey, boys and girls, that's the way things are, and will always be, so why not just accept that and move on ? I am in fact a strong supporter of that stance...
 
  • #113
Skyhunter said:
The purpose of this thread is to offer solutions to the problems you are describing. Most on this forum already realize the dysfunctionality of our political system.

What I am looking for is ideas, not rants. Jeez, I have enough of my own I don't need yours as well. :wink:

You know what couldn't be worse? Repopulating the highest levels of elected government randomly from the phone book; a draft.
 
  • #114
Zlex said:
You know what couldn't be worse? Repopulating the highest levels of elected government randomly from the phone book; a draft.
I would prefer going through it alphabetically and rotating every 3 months, but its your country.
 
  • #115
Zlex said:
You know what couldn't be worse? Repopulating the highest levels of elected government randomly from the phone book; a draft.
:smile: I suggest we at least try it. :smile:
 
  • #116
Great post Zlex ! :approve:
 
  • #117
Astronuc said:
I nominate Russ Watters for President of the United States!

Go get 'em Russ!
Hey there's still time for 2008! :biggrin:
 
  • #118
Relevant to the OP - I listened to an interview with Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel this morning on the local NPR station. I found it interesting and timely. I'll certainly be reading their book.

Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That Is Destroying America (Hardcover)
by Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel
Beckel and Thomas, political analysts and columnists for USA Today, examine the problem of political polarization by asking, Why are you reading this book? The answer: Bottom line... you are ticked off at politics. Rigid partisan beliefs, they think, have become more than a product of opposing ideologies—they have created an environment for the sole purpose of retaining political power, raising money, or making more money... benefit[ing] a few at the expense of many. Using a mix of arguments and anecdotes, Beckel and Thomas (a liberal and a conservative, respectively) assert that polarization creates conscientious nonvoters and congressional roughhousing and deceit. The book's ultimate purpose is to disarm partisan warfare by encouraging voters and candidates to align themselves with principles that directly benefit the largest possible number of citizens. The lucid political discussion between a conservative and liberal is refreshing, but their proposals are too utopian to realistically be widely embraced. Their proposition that independent thinking can be more effective than an adversarial pack mentality is a step in the right direction, though. (Oct. 9)
from Publisher's Weekly

I disagree that the proposals of Thomas and Beckel are necessarily too utopian - although they are certainly idealistic. Nevertheless, this is the direction we need to move if we want a better society, which ensures more opportunity and justice for all - not just the few who have close ties to the party controlling the government.

Throughout, Thomas and Beckel explode conventional wisdom and offer surprising new conclusions:

- The Red State/Blue State divide: Myth!
- A "common ground" presidential candidate can win in 2008: Reality!
- "Polarizers" like Ann Coulter and Michael Moore are the future of political debate: Myth!
- Major-party politics faces extinction: Reality!

These guys should know. For years Beckel and Thomas contributed to the climate of polarization in Washington . . . and they admit it. "We're two guys who spent a lot of years in the polarizing business, but on opposing sides," they write. "We helped write the game plan, and we have participated in everything from getting money out of true believers to appearing on television to help spread the contentious message. In many cases, we wrote the message. We know the gig, and it's just about up."

Thomas and Beckel discussed the media's role in promoting divisiveness in the country. They make a lot of money because of it. The media promotes confrontation and that contributes to the degradation of the political process.

Well enough is enough - and for me - it's gone too far!

As soon as the interview is posted, I'll add a link.

So in 2007 and 2008, third party and independent candidates do stand a much better chance of being elected.

Be informed - be involved - and get out and vote.
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
29
Views
10K
Replies
38
Views
7K
Replies
117
Views
14K
  • Poll Poll
Replies
8
Views
5K
Replies
33
Views
6K
Back
Top