111 replies to this topic

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I have listed a number of countries where socialism seems to be working very effectively indeed. There is no reason it couldn't work here.

Socialism ≠ Communism.

[Haflinger]

The Founding Fathers were a split lot; there were definitely some (like Alexander Hamilton to name one extreme example) crypto-monarchists among them who were forced by circumstances to set up a republic.

[Edward Reed]

I don't know if it's accurate to say they liked war. They were certainly willing to use it as a tool when necessary. But they lived in a very different time. Besides, not all socialists absolutely eschew war under all circumstances. I will tell you quite frankly that if the kind of system I'd like to see could be achieved through force of arms I'd be all for it. There are plenty of people I'd be happy to see lined up with their backs against the wall when the revolution comes.

It's not fair to apply modern standards to the late 18th century. The idea of socialism as we understand it today did not exist in the Founding Fathers' time. But I would argue that their stressing of equality and their belief that the levers of government should not be in the hands of titled nobility made them sort of proto-socialists. Granted, rule by landowning, rich, white males doesn't seem very progressive today, in 1776 it was, well, revolutionary.

The system they created allowed for an elite to rule. The only branch of government that was voted on directly by the people was the House of Representatives. Senators were choosen by either the governor or state legislature, and president was choosen by the electoral college. They didn't trust the common man and the constitution was written with an interest in providing protection from the seizure of property by the numerous minority(poor people). One of the most important factors starting the revolution was taxes but most of the original taxes only effected the rich as they did most of the importing of goods, so the revolution was both a war of ideals and improving the bottom-line for a select few.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

The only branch of government that was voted on directly by the people was the House of Representatives.

And that was a monumental step.

[Edward Reed]

not really, they had already had colonial legislatures that were voted on before the revolution and the English had the house of commons since the 14th Century.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

The House of Commons was not a freely elected body in 1776. Generally members were chosen by the local gentry. The modern Commons did not begin taking shape until the 19th century.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big Founding Fathers booster. Like you, I tend to think of them as a bunch of spoiled, rich white guys who didn't want to pay their taxes. But there were some radical thinkers in there, and the creation of a government based on the rule of law (as opposed to the rule of men) that was answerable to its people, however indirectly, was something new in the modern world.

Still, all in all, I think I would have preferred us to remain part of the British empire. If we had we'd probably have a lovely parliamentary democracy right now. Ah well.

[Edward Reed]

.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big Founding Fathers booster. Like you, I tend to think of them as a bunch of spoiled, rich white guys who didn't want to pay their taxes. But there were some radical thinkers in there, and the creation of a government based on the rule of law (as opposed to the rule of men) that was answerable to its people, however indirectly, was something new in the modern world.

One of the few things we agree on! lol

[Evil Rudekker]

We need to start a topic based on stuff we all agree on.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I wonder where we would start? Hmm. How about Richard Dawkins' "ten recommendations?"

• Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.
• In all things, strive to cause no harm.
• Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.
• Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.
• Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.
• Always seek to be learning something new.
• Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.
• Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.
• Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.
• Question everything.

[Haflinger]

As a man who lives in a British-style parliamentary democracy, I gotta say I'm not a huge fan of it either. I'd rather have an Irish-style setup.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Ireland's government structure is virtually identical to Britain's. Only the nomenclature is different, really. President = Queen, Taoiseach = Prime Minister, Dail = House of Commons, Seanad = House of Lords, and so on. I have always liked the title "Taoiseach," though. (It sounds like "tea shuck," but the last k sound is soft, like a "ch" in German.)

[Redezra]

The system they created allowed for an elite to rule. The only branch of government that was voted on directly by the people was the House of Representatives. Senators were choosen by either the governor or state legislature, and president was choosen by the electoral college. They didn't trust the common man and the constitution was written with an interest in providing protection from the seizure of property by the numerous minority(poor people). One of the most important factors starting the revolution was taxes but most of the original taxes only effected the rich as they did most of the importing of goods, so the revolution was both a war of ideals and improving the bottom-line for a select few.

How exactly is this a problem? The common man is an idiot, with no concept of what is good for all rather than himself. And even then we're cutting it close. I mean, what common man actually understands the full bredth of a national economy? Or the intricacies of social science?

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Winston Churchill once commented that democracy seems like a great idea until you meet the average voter.

[Haflinger]

Ireland's government structure is virtually identical to Britain's. Only the nomenclature is different, really. President = Queen, Taoiseach = Prime Minister, Dail = House of Commons, Seanad = House of Lords, and so on. I have always liked the title "Taoiseach," though. (It sounds like "tea shuck," but the last k sound is soft, like a "ch" in German.)

The Seanad is elected, and the Dail is elected by PR. Believe me it makes a difference

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

The Seanad is not directly elected. From Wikipedia:

Seanad Éireann consists of sixty senators:

• Eleven appointed by the Taoiseach (prime minister).
• Six elected by the graduates of certain Irish universities:
.....Three by graduates of the University of Dublin.
.....Three by graduates of the National University of Ireland.
• 43 elected from five special panels of nominees (known as Vocational Panels) by an electorate consisting of TDs (member of Dáil Éireann), senators and local councillors. Nomination is restrictive for the panel seats with only Oireachtas members and designated 'nominating bodies' entitled to nominate. Each of the five panels consists, in theory, of individuals possessing special knowledge of, or experience in, one of five specific fields. In practice the nominees are party members, often, though not always, failed or aspiring Dáil candidates:
.....Administrative Panel: Public administration and social services (including the voluntary sector).
.....Agricultural Panel: Agriculture and the fisheries.
.....Cultural and Educational Panel: Education, the arts, the Irish language and Irish culture and literature.
.....Industrial and Commercial Panel: Industry and commerce (including engineering and architecture).
.....Labour Panel: Labour (organised or otherwise).

Under the Constitution of Ireland the general election for the Seanad must occur not later than 90 days after the dissolution of Dáil Éireann. The election occurs under the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote (however in the panel constituencies each vote counts as 1000 meaning fractions of votes can be transferred). Membership is open to all Irish citizens over 21, but a senator cannot also be a member of Dáil Éireann. However, as stated above, nomination to vocational panel seats is restricted; while nomination in the University constituencies requires signatures of 10 graduates.

It's an enormously complex system that seems specifically designed to be undemocratic. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing -- democracy is not without drawbacks. I specifically like how they effectively restrict voting to people who, at least in theory, have a basic grasp of what's going on in the country. But to say that members of the Seanad are "elected" is a gross oversimplification of the reality. And anyway the Irish Seanad has only limited power, like the British House of Lords. Real legislative authority rests in the Dail.

I do like proportional representation, but lots of countries have that. In fact most European countries have it in some form or another.

But these are all details of how members of the Irish government are chosen. In structure they are still a parliamentary democracy.

[Haflinger]

Yes, that's why I said it was elected, and the Dail is elected by PR.

I also said "British-style parliamentary democracy." In my mind that means first past the post. Lots of countries are parliamentary democracies, but I would hardly consider say Sweden to be British-style.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Again, you're conflating electoral systems with governmental systems. The term "parliamentary democracy" refers to the structure and function of government, not the manner in which it is chosen. The Swedish riksdag is elected on a proportional basis, and unlike Britain's Parliament it is unicameral, but in practice it operates in a very typical Westminster-like manner. A British MP would not feel out of place on the floor of the riksdag (assuming he could speak Swedish!). In parliamentary democracies executive authority is exercised by the legislature through an appointed government, which can be dissolved at the legislature's discretion through a vote of no confidence. Typically there is also a ceremonial head of state with only symbolic power. Sweden and Ireland have all these features.

[Edward Reed]

How exactly is this a problem? The common man is an idiot, with no concept of what is good for all rather than himself. And even then we're cutting it close. I mean, what common man actually understands the full bredth of a national economy? Or the intricacies of social science?

wow and you were arguing for socialism a page ago, role-reversal. Everyone votes for what is good for themself even if they are idiots. I mean would a slave have voted to keep slavery intact even though it would have prevented a civil war. Hell no! We have to look out for our interests and vote by them, and if those interests win then they are the will of the majority and thus affect the most people with the outcome being good for the greatest number of people.


The problem is that the elite sometimes isn't the best. The elite is a social class that one only gains access into by birth. Sometimes within the elite there are men of great ability who do amazing work within the government but I'll always have a place in my heart for the self-made men. They are the best symbol of America that I can think of. They reflect the fluidity of society and the ability for a great man to be recognized even though he may not have been born into an elite.

[Redezra]

wow and you were arguing for socialism a page ago, role-reversal. Everyone votes for what is good for themself even if they are idiots. I mean would a slave have voted to keep slavery intact even though it would have prevented a civil war. Hell no! We have to look out for our interests and vote by them, and if those interests win then they are the will of the majority and thus affect the most people with the outcome being good for the greatest number of people.

As I said, good place to begin, not a good place to hang your hat. It's still horribly reliant on the incompetent making decisions. Frankly what should happen is those with expertise should vote on the areas they know of, and should not vote on that which they do not understand.

The problem is that the elite sometimes isn't the best. The elite is a social class that one only gains access into by birth. Sometimes within the elite there are men of great ability who do amazing work within the government but I'll always have a place in my heart for the self-made men. They are the best symbol of America that I can think of. They reflect the fluidity of society and the ability for a great man to be recognized even though he may not have been born into an elite.

The elite don't know what's best either. However the intellectually elite *do*. Therefore one should create a system of government where those naturally gifted mental power greater than the average, who actually *know*, make the decisions that matter.

[Edward Reed]

That system failed like every system of government does. We aren't perfect machines so any system will fail when put in place.. Thats why I believe in as little government as possible


edit: Just thought of something if Bernie Sanders is up for re-election this year his challenger can expect a $5k check in the mail from me.

Double Edit: Looks like he is time to fire up the Conservative War Machine, anyone in Vermont want to run against him?
The GOP has yet to nominate someone but

Sanders will be 71 years old in 2012.

I could always just let time do my dirty business

Edited by Edward Reed, 29 June 2012 - 04:20 AM.