# What Alternative kind of Government do you Support?

• News
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.

http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projects_encyclopedia/List_of_forms_of_government [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:

I personally support http://www.wordlist.org/an/Anarcho-syndicalism.html [Broken].

Last edited by a moderator:
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
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.

Why Capitalism?

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

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.

BobG
Homework Helper
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.

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

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.

loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
wasteofo2 said:
What are ideal conditions for capitalism?

Fair competition standards and full disclosure of all business practices.

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.

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.

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

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.

plover
Homework Helper
loseyourname said:
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.
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.

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

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

vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Smurf said:
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

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

vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
franznietzsche said:
Technocracy with capitalist economic philosophy (as opposed to socialist).

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.

vanesch said:
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.

I'll rephrase:

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

vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
franznietzsche said:
I'll rephrase:

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

Do you do the same thing to your kids ?

vanesch said:
Do you do the same thing to your kids ?

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. vanesch Staff Emeritus Science Advisor Gold Member franznietzsche said: But a normal healthy person who does nothing but wait to be given something without working, does deserve to starve. 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 ? vanesch said: 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 ? 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. 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. vanesch Staff Emeritus Science Advisor Gold Member franznietzsche said: 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. 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).

vanesch said:
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).

Well, since you bring up bad luck, your example of the woman fleeingher abusive "man," thats not bad luck. Thats the culmination of bad choices. The situation her kids are in, that is bad luck. The situation she's in, is the result of her bad judgement.

You say we agree, in principle. The difference is, and smurf brings this up, is that you want to serve the exceptions first. I do not. The government is a failure when it comes to this sort of thing, because too many people who should not be helped, get helped, and too many people who should not be helped have lobbyists that are far to powerful, and i'msick of it.

My mother works at bank. She has people come in every other week to cash disability checks. More than half are for carpal tunnel syndrome. She has yet to see even one who has any difficulty driving to the bank, opening the door, walking to her desk, signing paper work, or any thing else. Now i'm sure a few might have just been able to conceal genuine pain, but you cannot tell me, a bunch of people, obviously healthy enough to still work, if they can go to the bank on their own they can work, deserve anything from the government.

I think this is an example of the Government's inefficiency in dealing with scammers than the failure of the system in general. We have the same problems in Canada.

Smurf said:
I think this is an example of the Government's inefficiency in dealing with scammers than the failure of the system in general. We have the same problems in Canada.

The government is the system. The failure of the government is the failure of the system.

wasteofo2 said:
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.
Does the industrial age argument never die?