Democracy, the system of systems? - Page 3 - Tree of Souls

Neytiri. · #1 09-23-2010, 10:28 PM

Its a fact, the Less the government gets involved the better the economy does, its been proven by past experience, I think the government needs to take a step back, stop dealing out huge sums of money to faltering company's and let things run their course

Tsyal Makto · #2 09-23-2010, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neytiri.

Its a fact, the Less the government gets involved the better the economy does, its been proven by past experience, I think the government needs to take a step back, stop dealing out huge sums of money to faltering company's and let things run their course

I would love it if it worked that way, but laissez faire economics just lets greed run rampant, because in attempting to maximize profits, companies will outsource the best jobs (manufactoring and such), leaving only low paying service jobs. So if that country is trying to run an economy based on consumers, it all breaks down because, well, people don't have any money to buy things.

I like to compare it to giving Tim McVeigh a bag of fertilizer, and expecting him to plant a garden with it. The government gives corporations (McVeigh) all these benefits (fertilizer), like tax cuts, low teriffs, little regulation, etc., out of hope that they will provide good jobs and services (garden), but in reality all they will do is take advantage of this and outsource the best jobs, give themselves bonuses with money they should be reinvesting into their companies, and screw over the very country that gave them these benefits in the first place (the bomb, that McVeigh would make in reality).

Laissez faire, like communism, is an example of one of those ideologies that looks good on paper, but human nature mucks up in reality.

If we're talking economic health (though socially I have my qualms), the best era for the US was under Eisenhower in the 1950s, and it was an era of 91% taxes for income over $3,000,000, high tariffs, and healthy regulation. Everyone had a good job, and small business was doing amazing. This experiment of supply-side economics we are currently in is only 30 years old, and in the long run it has lead to a more fragile, weaker economy. We need to return to demand-side economics. THIS is true capitalism, as envisioned by Adam Smith, not the system we have now.

But I digress.

I agree that democracy is the best system, just as long as special interests keep out of the government, all they do is corrupt. That means seperation of church and state, no corporate personhood, no corporate funding of campaigns, etc. Plus the abolishment of some of these legislative dirty tricks like the filibuster and secret hold.

caveman · #3 09-24-2010, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neytiri.

Its a fact, the Less the government gets involved the better the economy does, its been proven by past experience, I think the government needs to take a step back, stop dealing out huge sums of money to faltering company's and let things run their course

I think people are starting to mix capitalism and democracy, or blame a form of government because of an economic system.

My take, economics aside, any system could be a good system (within reason). I mean, a monarchy could be a great system, but that depends on having a strong king leader that doesn't abuse power. I think the perfect form of government isn't a matter of policies, but of the people behind those policies.

**Woodsprite** · #4 09-23-2010, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aihwa

A dictatorship is personal power granted to yourself. A monarchy is power granted by a deity to a ruler.

Difference lies in "who grants power", when the power each wields is exactly the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aihwa

And as a whole, Monarchies have lasted far longer than the few democratic republics. Rome fell when its policies allowed somebody to seize power into a dictatorship.

...So, then how is democracy a bad thing or a "weak" thing if it was dictatorship, not democracy, that ultimately led to the fall of Rome?

And as far as I know, any civilization that has ever had a republic act as government never really failed; they were just taken over by dictatorships. Otherwise, the only reason monarchies have lasted longer was precisely because of the reason I just described: because the republics were taken over by dictatorships. The system itself has never actually failed, it was rather people who desired power who simply changed them.

Now we have a more advanced civilization where people can't simply just "take over" unless using revolution or coup d'etat, which rarely happens in the free world (if not never). We have the chance to see how far a democracy can really last without power-hungry people "changing" it. Of course... there are still people in every position in the free world that desire this, but they're seriously limited in what they can do... Corruption happens, I agree. But at this rate, we probably won't see it fully expand 'till God knows when. Perhaps at least 30-40 more years, but that's just a ballpark guess.

**Isard** · #5 09-24-2010, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Difference lies in "who grants power", when the power each wields is exactly the same.

...So, then how is democracy a bad thing or a "weak" thing if it was dictatorship, not democracy, that ultimately led to the fall of Rome?

And as far as I know, any civilization that has ever had a republic act as government never really failed; they were just taken over by dictatorships. Otherwise, the only reason monarchies have lasted longer was precisely because of the reason I just described: because the republics were taken over by dictatorships. The system itself has never actually failed, it was rather people who desired power who simply changed them.

Now we have a more advanced civilization where people can't simply just "take over" unless using revolution or coup d'etat, which rarely happens in the free world (if not never). We have the chance to see how far a democracy can really last without power-hungry people "changing" it. Of course... there are still people in every position in the free world that desire this, but they're seriously limited in what they can do... Corruption happens, I agree. But at this rate, we probably won't see it fully expand 'till God knows when. Perhaps at least 30-40 more years, but that's just a ballpark guess.

Right there. Past Democratic Republics have fallen when they spawned a dictatorship. Right there...

Now how many true democracy's have met that fate?

**Woodsprite** · #6 09-25-2010, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aihwa

Right there. Past Democratic Republics have fallen when they spawned a dictatorship. Right there...

...Who said anything about democracies "spawning" dictatorships? The dictatorships were established in opposition to the senate and the people in Rome as well as Greece. Those were pretty much the only places...

...So what's your point?

**Fosus** · #7 09-25-2010, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

...Who said anything about democracies "spawning" dictatorships? The dictatorships were established in opposition to the senate and the people in Rome as well as Greece. Those were pretty much the only places...

...So what's your point?

It shouldn't be too difficult to understand the point there. Something is badly wrong in the system if people are unhappy enough to take over the country.

**Woodsprite** · #8 09-25-2010, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fosus

It shouldn't be too difficult to understand the point there. Something is badly wrong in the system if people are unhappy enough to take over the country.

...If you use that same logic, you could guess why there were so many revolutions in many countries to overturn the king's rule around the turn of the century in the 1700s-1800s to replace him with a representative; to replace their system with a democracy.

...Kind of like why the American revolution happened.