Spew All About Politics Here

[emprworm]

This thread is for ...yup, you guessed it...politics!! I know that political views sometimes are influenced by religious views, so mention of religion is ok so long as it is in context with politics. Please dont change the subject to religion.

I begin by saying that Capitalism, though not perfect, is by all means the best form of government out there right now. This is not to exclude that someone could come up with something better, so I will give it a go. I further say that humans who seek for perfect human government will infinitely fail for all eternity. No such thing will ever exist. Is US capitalism the best? Not the best possible. Here is my dream government.

I think there are many areas in the US capitalist system that could be improved/changed.

This is my personal form of capitalisim that I would like to see in my government.

The best imperfect human government, IMHO, is as follows:

THE MAJOR POINTS IN MY GOVERNMENT:

Rights of the Citizens, and Principles of Government

* is one which allows its citizens complete freedom to think, believe and worship however they choose. This right is inherent, meaning that the government does not grant this right. It is your right by virtue of being human. The government protects this right at all times.

* all citizens have equal value, none is inherently superior or inferior to another. This right is also inherent and is not granted by the government, only protected.

* all citizens (in my best human government) will be under an objective moral law enforced by the government. This objective moral law is not subject to democracy, lest the people 'vote' in that slavery is ok. The source of the objective moral law in my government is the moral code given by Jesus (this is the case in the US). However, I only use this as a source for MORAL law, yet all the people are free to be atheists, buddhists, hindu's- anything they want. The government shall not mandate, nor regulate religion. Seperation of church and state means that religion is protected from influence by the state. Not the other way around. (This means that the church is protected from the state influence, but if a student in a public (state) school wants to personally pray in a public school before lunch or carry a Bible around to his classes, the state cannot ask to be 'protected' from the religious influence of the student)

* the government is fully accountable to the citizens. at no point, ever, will the citizens be accountable to the government (they are accountable to its laws, however). the citizens always have the power to change the functioning government, but all citizens have no power to change the moral law, and all citizens will always be accountable to the moral law (if anyone wants me to spell out the moral law, I'd be happy to).

Buying and Selling

* all citizens of this government will have the freedom to buy and sell to whomever they choose or not buy or sell from whomever they choose. Citizens may become wealthy or poor depending upon their hard work, good fortune (luck), motivation, and accomplishments.

* all citizens of this government will be able to own property and sell property as they so desire.

* the government cannot arbitrarily take from its citizens property that they legally own, unless the citizen has a debt that he/she refuses to pay. The government enforces the moral law (unchangable) and the societal law (changeable), and never acts of its own accord.

* All individuals may freely trade, buy and sell, starting businesses and corporations as they so desire. The government will forbid monopolies (where large businesses smother smaller businesses), and corporations will be modestly restricted as to prevent monopolies, thereby enhancing consumer choices in the marketplace. I am not sure yet how this restriction will take place. Perhaps by putting a cap on a corporations size? (as in once you get X amount of employees, or own X percentage of the market, you're capped) By not allowing a corporation to own 100% share of the market place, this allows less fortunate businesses the ability and ROOM to develop, innovate, and market their versions of the products. However, we must be careful here not to restrict too much.

* All citizens may invest money, save money, spend money, donate money- whatever they want to do with their money, they can do it, so long as they are not breaking any laws.

Taxation

* Since all governments require workers, which require money to operate, the citizens will be taxed to fund the government and to assist the poor. The tax code is a major component of society, since it must be fair but not unreasonable. Each year, the state will put out a level of income that represents "poverty." All citizens who's income fall below this line will be completely free from the burden of taxation. All others will be taxed. Taxation will not be oppressive, no citizen should ever see more than 50% (the majority) of his income taxed. And since I believe in the 10% tithe (citizens, of course are free to not tithe if they so choose), I personally would never put total taxation at more than 40%. There is no taxation applied to money that citizens donate to charities.

* Wealthy people will pay a higher tax. They will not be STRIPPED of their wealth. All citizens are allowed to have the attainable goal that they can be financially successful in life. The government has no right to remove that goal. Yet one price that a wealthy person pays is that they will fork out additional monies to help fund the poor.

* Capital Gains will not have a seperate tax. Since investment is the best chance a poor person has to accumulate wealth, having a high capital gains tax as a seperate tax will only suppress poor people. Taxes are applied to your annual income only. Taxes will not be applied to posessions, lest a man be taxed for something multiple times every year.

Government Accountability and Corruption

* there must be a check-and-balance system in place to keep elected officials accountable. it doesn't have to be identical to the US legislative/judicial/executive system, but nonetheless, there needs to be something in place that seperates elected officials into independent bodies that can keep each other in check.

* citizens have total freedom to elect officials, for whatever reason they want. The government cannot and should not ever try to influence a citizens free voice. If the citizen refuses to vote, then that is their right.

* The government will NOT be a "black hole" for money. Wasted spending must be cut. Needless Overspending not tolerated. When the wealthy people pay extra tax money, that money is ACTUALLY being used to help the poor of society and improve infrastructure and education.

Health Care

* Cost of health care will be capped. Medical companies and hospitals have the freedom to make profits, but they will be subject to monopoly laws as corporations are. Charging 1000 dollars for a basic injection, for example, would be grounds for racketeering. (this is the biggest problem in the US, I think. Our health system is a complete mess) The citizens will not be exploited by health care charges. I still need to think how this will be done and not impose on anyone's freedom. We can talk about this if you want.

* One branch of the government will be for diseases. Since it is NOT in the interest of a drug company to find cures for diseases (drug companies only care about 'treating' a disease- not curing it), therefore, the government must have a department of health that is full of scientists who seek CURES for diseases and approve/disapprove of drugs from for-profit medical companies.

Poverty

* A family in poverty is a family that can barely (or not at all) afford food, cannot afford health care, cannot or barely afford accomodation, cannot or barely afford transportation. A family in poverty usually does not have a cable TV or a computer with broadband. A family in poverty does not have large amounts of material wealth. Material assets will be taken into consideration to determine poverty before someone is tax exempt.

* The state will provide basic substinence for families in poverty and who are unemployed. They will receive only enough money to provide the basics of life. Families in poverty and are unemployed will be *required* to look for work so long as they are being sustained by the state. In order to draw state money, you have to meet three requirements:

[The_Sadukar]

My ideal system could explaind like this:

The goverment is responsibel for making sure that pepole (spelling?) can function 100%, but in return pepole must also

work as much as they can, this be may be as publiv employee or private. If the goverment as a result of some sort of crisis suddenly need some extra worker to do something the goverment should be able to conscript these workers for a limitet time.

[Terror]

hmmm, ideal system? kill all politicians and let's go back to medieval times :)

[The_Sadukar]

then we will just have politicians calling themselves baron, kings bishops and emperors

[Dante]

then we will just have politicians calling themselves baron, kings bishops and emperors

A bit like what I'd do. I'd rule the world from a black granite castle in Antarctica, and divide up the world between myself and my friends. That would obliterate war, and we'd rule supreme under such titles as Emperor, Queen, King, Count, Viscount (my personal favourite) etc. We would all sit on a world council should any rebellion/famine/accidental disagreement and war break out, we would fix it up without bloodshed. I would also be careful enough to give special favours (no taxes, big houses, servents, power, land, you get the idea) to people I liked.

Crime would be heavily stamped on, cruelty to animals, sexism, homophobia, racism and all the other such feelings, would become even more illegal than most of them already are.

I know many people wouldn't be happy with this, but that's not my concern, is it?

One more thing, emprworm, if this thread looks anything like turning into the old one titled "Go Bush" please shut it down. We don't need a repeat of that, thanks.

[emprworm]

medieval times were very horrible if you were lower class. you had zero chance to move up in life.

[Dante]

medieval times were very horrible if you were lower class. you had zero chance to move up in life.

As I said, not our problem. Crush 'em underfoot.

[nemafakei]

Hm. Ok, then... Fell free to criticise, especially in a way which entails improvement of the syatem I have put together; I'd be more than happy to improve it.

The basic principle of this government and syatem is that we co-ordinate better, as a world (if possible). That is to say, rather than working against each other in the antagonism that prevails today, causing things like poverty and its humanitarian effects, (and so catastrophes like those on 11/09/01), we would create a way by which we could work together. This will entail refocusing greed, one of the banes of modern civilisation into something constructive. That is, I would have it that the concept of making profit impossible. For profit means that someone or everyone else loses; a system by which everyone makes profit is a contradiction, since money is an expression of buying power of a percentage of the world's resources; the more money in the system, the less the money is worth. A system by which only a few make profit means that others become poor - this is unfair and immoral. We must refocus greed for the self to seek prosperity for the community that is our world.

To co-ordinate well, we must find a system that does not merely agree on a few rules of thumb and let things be - aside from being lazy, this will fail to protect people. Moreover, a government can never be based on the representation of self-interest. One village should not simply damn a river that another village relies on for a water supply. All plans must be drawn up with the intrests of all parties concerned in mind. For any dispute, negotiations are quicker and easier if the only negotiators are ones who are not involved parties. Moreover, better decisions will be created, since it is not in the interest of the negotiators to make a bad decision, the like of which happen today - especially when parties that would be harmend do not even get a lookin as to the decision.

It is not that individuals are all too stupid to decide for themselves what to do, it is that they may often be biased in their approach to a decision involving them, so arbitration must start.

To clarify a misconception.... The idea is not that people serve some hazy body called "The Government" (which would be made up by the populace themselves anyway). The people serve each other, being part of a community. No-one has the "right" to do something that is harmful to others. And inaction can be an active decision in of itself, and one which can indirectly hatm others. The government is merely an influence by which we protect each other from coming to harm, not some end in itself. However, we must make sure that it functions well, and to do this, we must help the governmental system to help each other.

However, it is not requires to sacrifice everything for others - we are just as much on the receiveng end of benefit.

Let me also dissuade you from the overused notion that everyone has certain rights which are somehow paramount. The idea in the form we know today was conceived in times when people were very worried about systems which would create wars and otherwise lead to general hardship. "Rights" is one tool that was used to stop prevent oppression. However, in systems designed specifically for the purpose of the benefit for all, whereby "rights" are not needed as a check-and-balance to stop misuse of power, we can safely dispose of the notion that is pleaded as a purpose in of itself.

That is not to say that we should not be free, that we should not be allowed to speak our thoughts, that we should not be given choice as to what we do, who we talk to. Indeed, to stop people doing these things would be counterproductive. But to enshrine these ideas as something we must protect at the expense of others is not sensible. Of course, no-one can go around imprisoning, gagging, or restricting people. But before providing for luxuries, we must make sure that we put our effort into getting everyone fed, educated, and in a position from which they can maximise their potential and be useful to society.

Let us consider the phrase "power corrupts". The idea of democracy is that power shared across the entire population will not be sufficient in any individual to corrupt any one. However, modern democracy fails in two ways: firstly, democracies elect representatives who individually hold power that would otherwise be spread across thousands of constituents - possibly sufficient to corrupt. Secondly, there is the problem that politics in a democracy where the people do not use their power or do not use it sensibly turns into a popularity contest, or a choice between larger parties so similar that the public are apathetic about any, and therefore about all politics. We see here the opposite to "power corrupts" - "weakness breeds disinterest" - without the choice of something different, people take what they are given for granted, and begin to ignore it.

However, note that in both cases that it is not the power or weakness itself which has this effect - it is someone's belief in the magnitude of their power that corrupts, and someone's lack of faith in their own ability to change something that makes them stop trying. Note especially that the illusion of power is relative - individual voters feel weaker if there is an omnipotent president, but stronger if there are larger groups who are unable to vote.

Therefore, when constructing a system of government, it must be considered that no-one should believe they have sufficient power to manipulate it to their own wont. Equally, no-one in the system should feel that they are so weak that the decisions they are asked to make are not needed or useful. To do this, we must make each decision universal, but no decision can be so great that it might be manipulated by greed, so that the balanced belief is supported by truth. This seems impossible. I believe it is not.

At this point, I will remind you of another political idea that is relevant. The idea of checks and balances to stop corruption by limitation of power is essential. It can be through scrutiny panels like corruption courts, or the electorate. Or, it can be through division of power - separate executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of government are common to many European democracies. Of these options, both will stop any manipulation of decisions for the purpose of greed, but only the second allows (some) decisions to be universal - in that decisions made by the Judiciary usually cannot be revoked or affected by decisions by the legislative. However, in most countries with such a system, we still have conflicts between different stages of the system - local legislative groups might pass a bye-law, but a national parliament might declare that the bye-law will be damaging to the country as a whole, thus over-ruling it. Therefore, the solution again seems to be to divide up the roles of of each body further, so that any one decision can only be made by one governing body - no single body can make decisions which are superior to those of another body. There are two reasons for this - first, the idea that one council is any better at making decisions than another is absurd. Secondly, as previously stated, the illusion of power is relative; if two councils composed in the same way were to make decisions on the same problem, making one council's decision constitutionally superior to that of the other will cause the 'better' council members to feel more powerful - and they would be more prone to corruption, whereas the 'worse' councillors would be more prone to disinterest.

So decisions should only be made once - this considerably reduces red tape, but appears to leave no route for appeal. This is not true, however. If the situation (or evidence) has changed considerably since the initial decision was made, then that decision will not be made again if an appeal is mounted - the decision could well be a different one, since it will be made concerning different circumstances, even if the topic and question are the same.

Next, it must be found how to best do this. It is obvious that no decision can be made by one person alone. But equally, it is difficult to keep an overlarge group informed well enough that they can contribute to the decision and the discussion of the decision. These are considerationsthat must be taken, but it is not my place, nor is it within my ability to assert or otherwise prescribe a set size for each body. However, it is known that there must be a great number of these bodies, each to deal with a different set of issues. Each council will have an equal amount of power, because each decision will be irrefutible by other councils. Some councils will be permenant (the members, of course, will not), but some will be temporary (councils to run enquiries into reasons for problems, crises, and disasters). Some will deal with research and analysis to provide information for other councils, others will make executive decisions. Some will deal with the administration (creation of, removal of, assignment of personnel to, liasons between) other councils.

So, once we have developed such a format for a council, we need to know about its members - specifically, how they are chosen. Since, in a vast network of councils, it is impossible to elect every single one democratically (plus, see above the problems of democracy, eg the tendency to elect figures for their popularity, not their ability), they must be elected in some other fashion. Moreover, this method cannot be relative to any form of political weightings, because that would be subject to opinion, as well as corruption. The only fair method is to select people randomly from the population to contribute, in the same way as National Service works in some European countries. Note that proficiency tests in such decision making would be required - perhaps in the form of written examinations, coupled with oral work and interviews. Those passing a minimum standard in capability and willingness will be put on a database, from which possible candidates for each council will be randomly selected, based on their preferences and interest in particular topics (so that people are not chosen to work on topics that bore them. Equally, someone who feels passionately about a particular topic is unsuitable to work as an unbiased opinion in a council). Testing methods for these attributes will have to be refined. It'll be difficult at first, but will become easier in the long run.

All finances are government-controlled. Your wages will be calculated on how well you serve the community compared to your potential. Therefore, a brilliant accountant will be paid more for doing accounting than otherwise. If you are serving the community at your full potential (ie no laziness, doing whatever will help the community most), then you will receive the maximum payment, based on how much is being produced by the country. NB, if there is a lack of teachers, an accountant might be paid more to be a Maths teacher. Council work will be paid at a good level as well.

Hence, shopkeepers will not profit from what they take in; goods will be bought by plastic card, shopkeepers will be paid by the government. Corruption is impossible, because there is no means by which it can occur, if all money is issued by the government.

Oh, yes. I don't like the idea of being called a socialist. I'm generally centre-right. And Edric and I don't yet see quite eye to eye yet, so what he may say might contradict what I do, and visa versa.

[The_Sadukar]

So who's for Fakeism, I'm

[Edric O]

Ok emprworm, let's continue our discussion from the What is your religion? topic...

Greed is the reason, Edric. Not luxuries. Ever read the book of Job? Job was rewarded by God with the most priceless earthly luxuries. And it was abundant and opulent. But Job wasn't tied to his luxuries. You are mistakenly calling luxuries SIN, which is SO FALSE.

No, I call luxuries BAD. Just because something isn't a sin, that doesn't make it good.

And most luxuries are sins anyway, at least IMO. (the yachts and private jets of the modern corporate bastards are WAY more than any opulence described in the Bible, except perhaps that of kings)

I am pleading with you here, Edric, you really truly need to understand this. Owning a luxury item does not mean you are greedy. You are trying to play God with your government. You are trying to 'fix' mans sinful nature, but you are out of line in doing so. And as a result, you massively punish many people by stripping them of their freedoms and enjoyments in life.

Actually, it all depends on your definition of "luxury items". Basically, what matters is HOW you obtain those expensive things in the first place. If it's by honest hard work, I respect you! If it's by having a lucky day at the NY Stock Exchange, you are worthless in my eyes.

In capitalism, most rich people got there only by "playing around" with money (buying stock, banking, etc.) and getting a profit from it. They are "money changers" as the Bible calls them.

There is more than enough food on this planet to feed eveyrone without taking away Bill Gates money. If your goal is to ensure people have food, clothing, and medicine, that can easily be accomplished and still allow for people to find luxuries they enjoy in life.

Of course you could produce more than enough food to feed everyone! But they would not be able to AFFORD it! That is the evil of capitalism in all it's glory. Even while there could be enough food and clothing for everybody, the poor don't have enough money to buy it!

how can you say this? I dont see anyone being happy in your society. It is a miserable existence. Money will have no real value in your society so you will not eradicate poverty. All you will do is make sure everyone is fed. But everyone is already fed here in the US, plus I get to play computer games and watch "Lord of the Rings."

Ha ha ha ha! Everyone is already fed in the US? You don't even see the poverty in your own country. Sure, it's true that only a very small percent of Americans are starving, but that still means thousands of people.

Besides, you're forgetting all the millions of innocents living in poverty in the 3rd world...

Value is based upon demand. Period. If no one wants your car, i dont care what its quality is, it has no value. Again, in your society money will be worthless. Within 10 years, you would have widespread rebellion and revolution. People resist government tryin to regulate value and demand. They always have, always will.

Wrong. Just wrong. PLEASE stop making unfounded assumptions! Every object has an absolute value: the money it takes to produce it. That's what I meant by "value".

And why would the people rebel if they can just vote my government out of office? But I'm willing to bet anything that they won't. That's because for the first time in history, all of them will have their needs met.

then it is not a democracy. If i cant choose to save my money, if I cant choose to sell my goods and store up that money to accumulate wealth, then there is no freedom. you are not for democracy. you are for societal slavery.

Democracy has nothing to do with money and the economy. What you're describing here is CAPITALISM, not democracy.

But let's not argue semantics.

Here is what I do. I make a quality thing that no one wants. My friend on the internet agrees to buy it and give it a good review if I return the favor to him. I just circumvented your flawed government.

No, you just made a fraud. There will be laws against this (there has to be a minimal number of buyers for their opinion to be considered objective)

no very possible. I just described how I would get half of the process to value my product. So now this product that NO ONE WANTS, which receives GOOD REVIEWS from people in the populace goes through council who then OVERRULES the votes of the citicens? Uh, was this democracy or not? So the council has absolute power then?

The councilS (note the PLURAL) don't have absolute power - in the case of a fraud like the one you described, they will take the case to court.

how much does he get paid?

How should I know? It depends on the monetary system and the state of the economy, of course. ::)

people would do that because the item would be in demand. and items in demand have value. Therefore they would be willing to give a small gift relative to them for the item of value.

But they DON'T have to send the "gifts" in order to receive the item! They have already BOUGHT it!! (from the music company). And you said that besides paying for it, they would also want (for some reason) to send money to the artist as a "thank you". That's a gift.

sounds good to me too. But I already have a government like this.

Too bad so many people have to suffer in order for you to have that government... (you know, the exploitation of the 3rd world)

capitalism is simply freedom to buy and sell presupposing equal rights for all. its very basic and pure in its true form. In every non-capitalist society that has ever existed on this planet, there was a capitalist sub-culture or "underground". People want it. Period. Its just how we are.

Huh? Where did you read that? It's not true. There is NOTHING to indicate that people have any kind of "natural preference" for capitalism.

1000 years ago, someone might have said about Feudalism that it's natural and "people want it"

People have been the same since the fall of man. Nothing has changed.

"You can't say there is no progress, for in every war they kill you in a different way"

[emprworm]

Nema, I do appreciate what you are trying to do. However, I reject your primary philsosophy that the governments job is to control greed. This is fundamental.

That is to say, rather than working against each other in the antagonism that prevails today, causing things like poverty and its humanitarian effects, (and so catastrophes like those on 11/09/01), we would create a way by which we could work together. This will entail refocusing greed, one of the banes of modern civilisation into something constructive. That is, I would have it that the concept of making profit impossible. For profit means that someone or everyone else loses; a system by which everyone makes profit is a contradiction, since money is an expression of buying power of a percentage of the world's resources; the more money in the system, the less the money is worth. A system by which only a few make profit means that others become poor - this is unfair and immoral. We must refocus greed for the self to seek prosperity for the community that is our world.

You are identifying a basic problem in human nature and asking that big government somehow control a human emotion. Humans have been, are, and always will be greedy. No government could ever hope to change that. This is called a sinful nature. It has been identified by theologians thousands of years ago. You are correct in identifying the problem. You are correct by postulating that this problem needs a solution. But the problem is a moral condition, and the solution must come from a source outside of humans, and that is God. A Human government cannot fix the moral condition of humans. All it can do is enforce justice for immoral actions. By stripping people of their rights in order to change a component of human nature, you wind up with people still being greedy in addition to having less rights. In my system, people are greedy, but free. In your system, they are still greedy, and they are slaves.

And I am going to toss a wrench into this whole socialist philosophy. I believe that it is the socialists who are the greediest people of all. I am not a rich person, Nema. I am probably lower-middle class. I came from the lowest of poverty, so I have enjoyed an increase in my quality of life because I worked hard and because my mother took care of me when we were standing in food lines. If I lived right next to Bill Gates, it wouldnt bother me a bit. I see rich people all the time. And I dont care. I dont want their money. Socialists are the greediest breed of humans on the earth because the most important thing in life for them is getting their paws on other people's money. They see bill gates and they actually get physically angry because they want his money. THEY are the greedy ones. They see people with money and say to themselves, "whats yours is mine. MINE MINE MINE" Now I am not accusing you of this Nema, this is only my perception of socialism. I tell people, 'get a life, quit worrying about what other people have and start being thankful for what God has given you.'

You see, a socialist could not live next to Bill Gates. he would go crazy seeing the nice cars, the fancy suits, the expensive watches, etc, etc. He would be full of greed and his eyes would be narrowly focused on the material wealth of Gates. He would think about it day in and day out. He would lie awake at night angry at the world because how DARE this man have all this money. He would have an immense desire to take that money, forcibly, because he too wants a piece of the big pie along with all his poor friends. This is greed in its purest form. I couldnt care less how rich bill gates is. If my neighbor had a trillion dollars..BIG DEAL. I have Jesus. I think I am the wealthiest man in the world. Ever stand on the beach and gaze out accross the sky? Who owns that? Who owns the stars or the mountains? When you are so wrapped up in another mans material worldy items, take a deep breath and realize that you are ALIVE. You are here, right now, and this wonderful place called the universe, does not belong to Bill Gates. You can cherish this great wealth all around you, and you do not have to worry and get all uptight because SOMEONE ELSE is being greedy. This universe does not belong to them, and it is an awesome place. There is tremendous wealth to be found all around you, but too many socialists are so narrowly focused on other people's money due to immense greed, that they dont even notice the vast treasures that have already been given to them. WOrrying about other people's money all the time will only ruin yourself.

[Edric O]

I think Nema's system is called Consiliary Dynamism (hehe, ;) Nema)

Fakeism is definately a very bad name, because (as far as I know) "fakei" is a greek word. I don't know what it means, but somehow I don't think it fits a political system. :)

[emprworm]

of course you could produce more than enough food to feed everyone! But they would not be able to AFFORD it! That is the evil of capitalism in all it's glory. Even while there could be enough food and clothing for everybody, the poor don't have enough money to buy it!

I humbly request you now do me the favor and read my proposed capitalist government. everyone is fed and people have freedom.

as for your statement on value, it is not true edrich. You are naeive, my friend. I do not mean that to insult you, but you really do not understand economics. Scores and scores of items cost far more than they are worth simply because of demand, and demand alone. Someone might spend a million bucks making a computer game that no one wants. It has demand, hence no value, and its cost far more than its worth.

Your understanding of things are too simplistic. Economics is massively complex, and demand is highly integral to value in economics. you just cannot cite anything in existence in this world that has value in which their is no demand for. Even in your example, the total thing is valueless due to lack of demand, but the component parts will have some value ONLY if they too are in demand. If you disagree with this, it is time you cite some actual examples, and I will be willing to listen. Otherwise, i'd like you to comment on my government which grants its citizens substantially more freedom than yours, while granting full existence to luxuries such as multi-million dollar motion pictures.

[Edric O]

Emprworm, I think I speak for all socialists when I say that your vision of us is completely wrong.

I don't want more money. I'm lower-middle class in Romania, but I'm satisfied with what I have. I honestly don't know what to buy for Christmas, because at this point in time I don't want anything that can be bought.

When I look at Bill Gates I think:

"How DARE he have all that money and not give anything to that poor man down the street who can't feed his children!!"

I hate hypocrisy. I don't ask anyone to do something I would not do. I know what suffering means, and I don't want to see people suffer. Bill Gates has no right to ignore starving innocents! It is for THEM that I must fight. I don't want anything for myself.

[Edric O]

Emprworm, I know very well what "value" means in capitalism! I think I can safely say I have a reasonable grasp on economics, and "value" is a basic concept.

But I was talking about a different meaning of "value", like a different word altogether. What I meant by this "value" was "production cost".

[nemafakei]

Fakeism doesn't sound good, no. Not in english or greek.

"and the solution must come from a source outside of humans, and that is God"

On non-religious grounds, we cannot simpy wait to be corrected, for it might never come, meanwhile thousands die every day of terrible diseases which could so easily be cured.

On religious grounds, are we not supposed to at least try to combat the evils in the world, instead of waiting for God to do it for us?

"In your system, they are still greedy, and they are slaves."

I do not expect to change people overnight. But I hope, over many generations, we can at least make ourselves more decent people. It's got to be better than wallowing in self-revulsion. And no, they won't be slaves. They'll be free, and there will be democracy, but not in the way you're used to.

"Now I am not accusing you of this Nema"

Thankyou; I stand to gain little from my new system, and I could do a lot better without.

"you do not have to worry and get all uptight because SOMEONE ELSE is being greedy"

Wrong. I must get "uptight" because people are losing out due to the greed of others. When I say losing out, I means seriously losing out. Hundreds of millions in third world countries who can... stare out at the festering pool of water used by themselves and the rest of their town and animals, for all purposes, at their fields, full of mines. Many can't even see in the first place, yet millions could regain their sight from a routine one hour operation.

[Edric O]

Okay Emprworm, I will now read your proposal for the improved capitalism. But I won't have the time to write my comments tonight. Sorry. :(

Just one more thing before I call it a night: You asked me to think about the issue of inheritance, and I did.

It's quite simple really. All we want to avoid is people giving an unfair advantage to their children over other people's children. Taking their money away is undemocratic and completely against my principles. And it won't be necessary. All education will be free. There will be no private companies, so the concept of "investing your money" is obsolete. Therefore, having more money won't give you a head start in life. The problem you pointed out doesn't exist.

[emprworm]

Edric, I respect you as a person, and a brother in the Lord. But I believe socialists are the most greediest people in the world. Envy is a bad thing. Judging others is a bad thing. I let God judge.

If Bill Gates isnt feeding enough poor people with his wealth, then you can help them. Being angry at Bill Gates, judging him, and focusing on his money does you no good, and it absolutely does those poor people no good. You have something far far more valuable than anything Bill gates has. you have the truth. If Bill Gates isnt feeding enough people with his money, are you sharing the gospel with enough people?

I couldnt care less about material wealth... period. I enjoy luxuries in life. Things that your society would not offer. Yet while all these luxuries exist, there are people hungry in this world. Does it make luxuries wrong? I dont believe so. What is wrong is focusing soley on luxuries. But if a man wants to focus on luxuries, it is his freedom to do so. God wont interferre, and neither should you. A luxury is simply something whos sole purpose is to give pleasure to someone. Your computer and all the time you spend making EBFD are modest luxuries. You could sell your computer and feed some children. So why dont you? Some say I should feel guilty for going out to dinner, or watching movies, or enjoying pleasures in life like vacations, water-skiing, etc. But I dont because I know that these things are products of freedom. Supressing freedom is the worst kind of evil. I'd rather live in a world where some people are greedy and wealthy and free then a world where there is no wealth but people are slaves. And I know that luxuries are not necessary to be truly free in Christ. They are temporal and not to be sought after. So I am not really attached to them, yet I enjoy them. And capitalism is the only thing (that I am aware of) that can bring them. Like watching Lord of The Rings, a 200 million dollar luxury. What kind of society, other than capitalism would afford to spend so much money on 2 hours of temporal entertainment? Unless you are wealthy to begin with, no such immense expenditure on such a thing could take place. But they were free to make it, and free to spend all that money lavishly on something that does no purpose but to entertain. And yes I enjoy looking at someone else's luxuries, even though I dont actually own them. I like looking at another guys ferrari or a movie stuidios motion picture. I like looking at fancy mansions. I even PAY sometimes to look at someone elses property (such as movies or a car show for example). Do I need to own it? No. Do I really care? Nope. Big deal. The socialist looks at those things and gets greedy. He gets angry because his eyes are filled with all that money and his paws get tingly because he wants to seize it. This is bad. Very bad. Take what God gives you, and be thankful. Help others with what god gives you YOU, not with what God gives to someone else. I dont get many luxuries, but when I can, I enjoy them. They add to my happiness that i have. Yet I know that luxuries do not last, and they have have no value compared to God, and will all burn away in the end. If a man craves luxuries in life, that is his loss, but it is his freedom. Aviation is a wonderful, incredible invention. i dont blame people for wanting to have their own airplane. What an amazing thing for a man to fly his own aircraft! I cant afford my own airplane, so I pay money to ride someone else's. Big deal. If someone else can afford their own plane, I really dont care. So-freaking-what! 8)

Those poor people can be wealthy in their poverty. Jesus is more valuable than anything Bill Gates has to offer. You are in a much better position to help the poor than Bill Gates is. I was poor Edric. And the last thing I ever wanted was an Edric to tell me I needed Bill Gate's money. Had someone taken Bill Gate's money by force and gave it to me and said "here be happy" I might not have ever found Christ because I would have been satiated with material items which ultimately have no value and will burn away when it all comes down. It was in my poverty that I came to see the light of God, and any material wealth I get in life, I do not want as the result of a handout. I do not want someone else's money. I never have, and I never will- at least I hope I never get so greedy that I ever will. Maybe you should consider that there are many poor people that dont want Bill Gates money. Maybe they are content with what they have. Maybe they dont need an Edric to steal from the rich and give to them.

I am a visitor here. I am here but for a moment then I'm gone. I am just visiting. And during my visit, I will share the truth of God and I hope that others too join me because my destination is somewhere else. And if you have only a little to give, then let God multiply it. Dont worry about Bill Gate's money, it is a poison on your soul. Let Bill Gates render unto Bill Gates as Bill Gates wants to. Bill Gates money means nothing in the end. Feeding the belley is important, but not as important as feeding the soul. Where Bill Gates fails, you can pick up the slack. Freedom is more important than money. The truth of God is more important than money. BIll Gates needs your prayers, not your hatred.

[SurlyPIG]

Let me begin by sayint there is absolutely no system of government that is perfect. It isn't possible. Somewhere in the world, people are worse for wear because of that government. This is an absolute certainty.

Capitalism; I like it. Know why? It gives people incentive. I learned last year about one of the British (or was he American) founders of capitalism. I wish I could remember his name...the just of what he said is what I base my economical views on. Anyway his theory stated that people will do what is best for them. This can be interpreted on SSSOOO many levels. Such as people will only work when it is in their best interest. Work = progress. All religions are based on this concept. Capitalism is based on this concept. And think about it...it makes 100% sense. People work because they will be better off than if they didn't. Take away that and you take away the motivation to do anything.

Obviously a good government will be based on a system where what individuals do for their own good will be for the greater good as well.

What's wrong with capitalism? It's a game. Sure, with socialist contries, you can "play the game" to suit yourself to a certain ability. But capitalism is the most extreme game/competition. I think competition is good. It motivates people to do things they normally wouldn't. That said, with any game, there are winners, and there are losers. In order for someone to profit, someone must take a deficet. Again, a good government will have a system set up where, somehow, the winners winning will also somehow help the losers win. For the most part, this is difficult, if not impossible. Capitalism inspires. It encourages question, debate, invention, and innovation. It creates motivation and drive for the people.

Socialism; this is the kind of system where money should not exist. Wealth existing at all is contrary to the principles of socialism. The problem with this is that there is no motivation. There's no incentive to work harder. There's no incentive to think, invent, question, introduce new ideas, new theories, to analyze the way we do things, and to better ourselves.

Greed makes the world go around. Capitalism works best at this because it puts the greed of individuals and companies in a fight and the strongest one wins the big prize. All successful religions use principles of greed to spread themselves. Divine suffering, hell, divine punishment, whatever you want to call it, it's the thing that makes religions tick. The fear of such things drives people to practice the religion. Some argue, "But ace, salvation by grace will NOT get you out of eternal hellfire" Well I say to them this; what do you think would happen to a religion if there WAS no hell in it. There were no commandments or rules. Would it be successful? Would it be practiced? Absolutely not. Know why? Greed. People want the divine reward. People also want to avoid eternal punishment.

On one hand, I think, with the introduction of science, some individuals are turning to bigger and better things. I hope the day comes where humanity will abandon its beliefs in the supernatural and strive forward. To where? Space. I believe it is our destiny to search out the stars; to expand our minds to new concepts, new places and new ideas. We can learn many, many things from those different from us.

On the other hand I also reckognize a different goal of humanity; the creation of life. When we will be so powerful as to actually create life. Not to use it, not to destroy it, not to take advantage of it, but to study it. To see if all life develops ethically and mentally in much the same way as we do. In many ways, this is the same as exploring space to find out more about ourselves. Perhaps this is why we exist. Maybe we were created by other beings to develop for their scientific purposes. Perhaps when we reckognize this we will join them as equals. Then again maybe they'll terminate us. The big questions can't be answered by us yet. I hope that one day, humanity will be able to put aside it's petty political difference and strive towards one goal; exploring ourselves, the universe, and each other. I hope that this goal will be universally shared because we will have accomplished everything else. I hope it'll be because we HAVE stopped war and we HAVE ended famine. Is my hope false? Gee I hope not...In the mean time, I reckognize the fact that this will never, ever happen during the time I'm here, and do my best to better the current system so that something better may become of it.

[Anathema]

My ideal of society:

Costitution

Only one part is unchangable: everybody must respect the human rights that were defined on something I forgot about. The rest is changable, but not easily, because society changes continuously. A council of supreme judges (that hold their position as supreme judge for life, so they aren't in a corruptable position- however, they may be forced out of office- I'll explain later) can make alterations to the constitution if a certain percentage of them agrees to it- let's say 75 %.

Below the supreme judges we'd need a larger council of judges that do not have the same authorities of the supreme judges but can force one out of office if a large majority of them agrees- say 75 %. Since this there's nothing else to it in this job, they can also be "normal" judges- but no supreme judge can also be in the council of judges that oversees the supreme judges.

Supreme judges also have the responsibility to monitor the activities of political parties. Any judge can start an investigation in the activities of a particular party- the rights of the enquirers will be considerable.

The supreme judges will have another responsibility, described in the section below.

Democracy

There should be at least several parties (more then 2). Parties that do not oppose violation of human rights are forbidden.

The decisions are made by a cabinet- the way it is composed will be described later. The cabinet is closely monitored by the parlement- I'll explain the election of the parlement now.

It is similar to the Dutch system. There is a set amount of "seats" in the parlement, let's say 150. One seat is thus equevailant to 1/ 150 of all votes put together. Each party makes up a list of the electable members of that party. If a person doesn't vote to a particular member of that party, but just on the party as a whole, the vote goes to #1 on that list. If candidate #1 has enough votes to get a seat in the parlement, the residual votes go to #2. If #2 has enough votes to get a seat, the residual votes go to #3 et cetera. A person can also vote on say #3, but then the residual votes always goes to the highest candidate that does not have residual votes (that could be #1, though he/she is likely to have far more then the required amount of votes).

When the votes are count and the seats distributed, the supreme judges come into the picture. The supreme judges vote for a person that will compose the new cabinet (government). That person will see wich parties are willing to form a new government together. The government can however not do anything if the majority of the parlement doesn't agree to it. Theoreticly the person appointed to compose the government can be bribed to put a party in the goverment that had a relatively low amount of votes, but that won't be of any use because that government is unlikely to get any support from the parlement.

The difference from the Dutch election system is that the person that composes the new government is not appointed by the queen, but by the supreme judges.

Economy

There will be private property and seperate companies. However, the government should attempt to counter monoply formation, for example by providing financial aid to smaller companies in a sector that is dominated by larger companies.

Tax and social security

There will be a minimum wage, wich is slightly above the money sum deemed necessary to stay alive, so the badly paid people can still buy some luxuries such as a TV. The richest of the rich, say persons that make more then 3 million on an anual basis, should be heavily taxed- a maximum tax rate of 60 % is IMO justifyable. People that earn minimum wage or slightly above it should not be taxed on income.

Unemployed people should get social security- slightly below minimum wage- provided they are looking for work or in school for education. If a person doesn't apply for any job in a month and is not in school either, he will be stripped of social security- a motivation to start looking for work again. If he/she prefers to live on the street rather then to look for a job then that's his/her choice.

Punishment

No suspect should ever be released because of formal mistakes- it's happening now and it's stupid. Furthermore, no death penalty- you are never 100 % sure a person is guilty and death is irreversable. (1 on 7 persons executed in the US turns out not guilty).

Healthcare

Health care will cost money, but any employed person must have a health insurance- and I mean must. If an unemployed person requires treatment, and can't pay for it himself, the treatment will be administered nonetheless, but that person will carry the debt of his payment, and when he finds work, he'll be forced to pay back part of his debt over every dollar he earns.

Education

Every kid younger then 16 years has to go to school. The schools will be funded entirely by taxes. Religious schools are allowed. If a person would wants to start running a school for a particular religion, he must get a certain amount of people from the region to sign a petition- to be sure the school has enough pupils.

If a kid decides to go to college, he will receive a scholarship wich will be high enough to live, but so low it will be beneficial to get a job as well. If his/her grades are low as a result of not enough effort, he will be stripped of his seat in college and his scholarship.

Patent

I don't know how long a patent last in the EU, but IMO it should last for 15 years.

[nemafakei]

I still don't see how you can be sure your supreme judges will not be corrupt - surely, if in power for life, they will be easily sought, and a focus for power - so offers will come - among which, opportunities for discretely-performed bribery will inevitably take place - and, if successful, could continue for th whole of a judge's life.

"The decisions are made by a cabinet"

What, exactly are the differences, in your system, by the cabinet and parliament.

[Anathema]

The supreme judges will be closely monitored by a council of "lower" judges, and there will be quite a large number of supreme judges- nobody could hope to bribe the majority of them. Though of course this system is not 100 % full proof, nothing is.

The cabinet is the actual government, consistant of the ministers and their staff. They can make proposals- that will have to be approved by the majority of the parlement. The ministers will also be in charge of daily matters.

The parlement consists of those chosen by the people. The cabinet (government) cannot make any major decisions without the approval of a majority of the parlement.

[nemafakei]

I see.

The government would have to put a lot of money and effort into controlling businesses to make a good economy, but it's feasible, I think.

[emprworm]

capitalism in its purest form is very basic and says only that all people are free and equal, that freedom and human equality is an inherent right (objective morality), not a right granted by government, and that all people are free to own property, and that the government serves the people.

Thats it.

There are many variations on it, but bascially thats capitalism in a nutshell. It is best system of government out there. Socialsists are either too greedy (they cant keep their paws off other peoples property) or are trying to fix the sinful condition of humans through government, which fails utterly in every known example in history, and there is no good reason to think that any future attempts will have any different effect than the same failures of the past.

the third world countries Nema keeps bringing up are the result of two primary problems:

naitive religions and localized government, none of which represent true capitalism or an objective moral law.

[DukeLeto]

Let me say something real quick:

My idea of the perfect government:

A PURE democracy with a PURE communist (If you can't understand what "pure" communism is, ask Edric. He knows.) or socialist economic system. No cpitalist-created problems, with all the freedoms of a democracy.