# What Alternative kind of Government do you Support?

1. Nov 20, 2004

### Smurf

In this thread everyone get's to express what kind of alternative Government you think we should have?

Rules are:
No arguing for Democracy
No arguing for Republic
No arguing for Fascism
No arguing for Communism

Why:
Because we've tried those before, (except maybe communism according to some, but whatever) and this thread is to find an Alternative, a New Shiny idea of a Government.

Reference Government List

2. Nov 20, 2004

### Smurf

3. Nov 20, 2004

### loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Well, that's about exactly the opposite of what I would propose.

Ideally, I would eliminate just about every role of government outside of foreign relations, contract enforcement, currency printing, and national defense, although even here I would like the military to rely more on the production of technology that can be applied to civilian use rather than on taxation and deficit spending. I'd like to see the majority of decisions made locally and see federal government just about completely abolished, sort of a town-hall approach to government, with each municipality deciding for itself how to spend its own money and what rules it will live by. I'd like to see public services provided by private investment and user fees wherever possible, again in lieu of taxation. All taxation that does exist would ideally be applied only to transactions between private entities and public entities, eliminating income and corporate taxes. An important part of privatizing most government functions, and also allowing the market to operate under the best conditions, would be full disclosure of business activities, including expense reports, for all companies, not just those listed on public stock exchanges. I'd probably leave this function to the government as well. This way, we can bring about the only true democracy, one based on the principals of capitalism, where you vote with your dollar, giving it to whoever does the job best, instead of giving half to a public beast that misspends it without repercussion.

4. Nov 20, 2004

### Smurf

Why Capitalism?

5. Nov 20, 2004

### loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Because when it operates under ideal conditions, it is the only fair system of exchange of goods and services ever devised.

6. Nov 20, 2004

### Smurf

That is simply untrue.
Ever tried in the west? True.
Most Successfull in exploiting the world? True.

But there are a million and one economic systems that have been devised that just havn't been tried yet because they would take power away from the corporations.

7. Nov 20, 2004

### BobG

Interesting list.

Wouldn't doulocracy (rule by slaves) be problematic? What if they outlawed slavery? Or would political candidates sell themselves into slavery to raise campaign funds? (Reminds of the SNL skit about how Dole's resignation from the Senate might affect the Clinton/Dole Presidential campaign :rofl: )

A strumpetocracy (rule by strumpets) or a pornocracy (rule by harlots) would make for an interesting campaign. :tongue2:

I'd lean towards a mesocracy. Better than the stochastic foolocracy we have today.

8. Nov 20, 2004

### wasteofo2

What are ideal conditions for capitalism?

Around the time of the industrial revolution, the government had very few restrictions on buisness. As a result, the wages workers were paid were ridiculously low, children as young as 4 were working to help support their families, there was no reason for buisnesses to spend any extra money to protect their employees from work-related accidents, buisnesses had no accountability for their actions, and thus they took no precautions to protect the environment.

I think you need a strong/fair central government to keep corporations in check. Without government mandating minimum wage, environmental restraints, work place safety etc., corporations have no reason to not exploit people if it'll make them more money.

9. Nov 20, 2004

### loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Fair competition standards and full disclosure of all business practices.

Sure they do. The only way for any company to remain in existence is for them to sell their product or service. When they operate according to fair competition standards (no collusion, kickbacks, etc., all strictly regulated by an impartial third-party committee that is not politicized) and under full disclosure, they have every reason not to exploit anybody.

I suppose this depends on what you mean by fair. By fair, I mean that this is the least coercive and aggressive of any economic system.

10. Nov 20, 2004

### plover

How do you get companies that see this as in their best interest? The ones we have now fight transparency kicking and screaming.

And how do economies of scale operate? If governmental decisions are all local and but corporate decisions can be global, you'd end up with a kind of corporate feudalism, with your proposed central governments sort of serving the role the church played in medieval feudalism.

11. Nov 20, 2004

### franznietzsche

Technocracy with capitalist economic philosophy (as opposed to socialist).

If your IQ is over 140, you matter, if not, get back to work.

12. Nov 21, 2004

### vanesch

Staff Emeritus
A favorite goes to random technocracy, where people with the right competences in the domain are given political responsability by random choice (lottery). It is actually very close to the actual way of functioning of the European administration. Legislation comes out, but there are no faces on it, no parties on it. It just happens

13. Nov 21, 2004

### vanesch

Staff Emeritus
I'd like to see both, actually. No matter what capitalists (or socialists for that matter) say, a simplistic ideology never works optimally in all circumstances. Some things work better with a capitalist ideology, others with a socialist ideology, and sometimes you'll have to think up another alternative. There's no magic rule that solves all problems in one sentence.

14. Nov 21, 2004

### franznietzsche

I'll rephrase:

Technocracy: But you don't get what you don't earn. Period.

15. Nov 21, 2004

### vanesch

Staff Emeritus
Do you do the same thing to your kids ?

16. Nov 21, 2004

### franznietzsche

If i had kids, yes. They don't get allowances for chores, they do chores because they are alive. They have to learn that nothing is free. If they choose to do extra things for money, then so be it, but nothing in this world is free,and they have to learn that.

I've seen nine year olds with $200 cd players (not so common now that they are cheaper) listening to someofthe fouestl music, becuase their parents just give them what they want. I have a friend who works at best buy and routinely has parents who come and pick things up, at their child's request while the kid is at school so they kid can have it when he gets home. Heck no. You have to earn your keep in this world, and learn to not expect it to be given to you by anyone, the government least of all. Now back to more political territory: Before one of themore vapid liberals trys it, i will jsut say that no, if one is mentallyretarded or parapalegic or otherwise genuinely disabled i don'tthink that they should starve because they cannot function. But a normal healthy person who does nothing but wait to be given something without working, does deserve to starve. 17. Nov 21, 2004 ### vanesch Staff Emeritus Glub ! :yuck: Can you imagine he/she's maybe between a rock and a hard place ? Like after having been beaten up by her man, left alone with 4 children, on the street, of which two are ill and nothing to live off ? Things like that ? 18. Nov 21, 2004 ### franznietzsche I'm speaking in generalities. General rules. You are dealing with exceptions. As i made the point about people genuinely disabled there are exceptions, but the rule is you earn what you get, you don't go to others looking for handouts and freebies just because you're lazy. 19. Nov 21, 2004 ### Smurf Franz, I think it is a common misconcenption that Socialism is going to give people everything for free, I don't know the dictionary definition off the top of my head but I've been called a socialist more often than not and I don't think people should get money for not doing anything either. My socialism is about exceptions. 20. Nov 21, 2004 ### vanesch Staff Emeritus Well, then we agree. But if there is not some form of social coverage organised by the state, there's no way to handle these "exceptions". (that is what a long discussion with Aquamarine was about) It is typically one of the problems that pure, hard capitalism handles badly. However, you'd be surprised what is the fraction of people in "socialist states" according to a typical US view, like many Western European ones who are supported by social wellfare, that are of the "exceptional case". It is true, however, that there is also a fraction based on laziness, or even downright abuse (in that they DO work, undeclared, and get their allowances on top of that, making easily$6000 a month cash). There should be a strong crackdown on that.
But nevertheless, there's more honest misery out there than you think, and it is often not the fault of the people (they just had bad luck for one or another reason, often one of the factors being born in the wrong place).