The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Goverment for all the people

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
luckyboy44 On March 26, 2020




Raytown,
#1New Post! May 14, 2017 @ 11:04:14
Government for all the people


We are all a part of a community and what we do affects that community just as what others do affects us. Government is how we interact with our community. A family council or the United Nations both our acts of community action and government. We can not do anything alone but together everything is possible. The true purpose of government is to to help us to achieve what is possible. To help everyone get what they need to develop their own unique gifts.
What do we need? Food, shelter, health care, education, and purpose.  Government must focus on the common good, not what is best for one group or another. If one person is in need then the whole group is in need and if one person has a problem it is a problem for all. We can each see how problems half a world away affect our lives as well as how we affect the lives of all around us. We and our government has for too long focused on ourselves and our problems at the cost of our community. We need to stop thinking about what is good for us and start thinking just about what is good. The only winning situation is one that everyone wins.
The greatest treasure in this world is a human life for each one has the potential of creating something that will change the world forever. When we fail to help them develop their potential we rob ourselves and our future of what it could be. We must learn to work for the common good. Only the common good is the greatest good
This treasure can begin to be utilized by enacting a minimum standard of living for all citizens. No person in our country should go without food, shelter health care or access to education. We can not afford to let them. The cost will be every citizen’s obligation to perform a period of public service and anyone could become a citizen by also serving a period of public service.
There is no lack of work to be done and no lack of people that have or can acquire the skills to do that work. The only thing that is missing is the organization to bring what is needed together. A public works commission could both identify the work that needs to be done, allocate the people that need to do it and arrange the support they would need to do it in the most efficient and effective way possible.
mrmhead On March 27, 2024




NE, Ohio
#2New Post! May 14, 2017 @ 13:42:07
You seem to be pushing a form of socialism in your various posts (eg no money thread)

Socialism, Communism, Capitalism

Democracy, Monarchy, Oligarchy

All kinds of "-isms" and "-arcies" look fantastic on paper.

But once you add people, it all breaks down.
Enter the 7 sins.
chaski On about 16 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#3New Post! May 14, 2017 @ 15:06:11
Communism looks good on paper.

When put into action it quickly becomes repressive.
Leon On December 21, 2023




San Diego, California
#4New Post! May 15, 2017 @ 03:41:02
Socialism is all fine and dandy as long as all its measures and those who pass them are put in place through a democratic system of government. Otherwise, it runs the risk of turning into totalitarianism and usually collapses as a result. History has shown us this.
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#5New Post! May 15, 2017 @ 13:18:37
The government, historically, sucks at most of the things it does.

If one person has a problem, what about that one person making better choices and doing things to better his or her situation? And I'm not talking about people who are unable to work. I am talking about people who can work and do not. Why is it everyone else's responsibility to provide for those? If the person two towns over from you goes to the casino and gambles away his paycheck or spends himself into a mountain of debt buying things he doesn't need and can't afford, why is that your problem to deal with? What about his own accountability?

The only winning situation is one in which everyone wins? Good luck finding that unicorn.
Leon On December 21, 2023




San Diego, California
#6New Post! May 16, 2017 @ 15:37:14
@Eaglebauer Said

The government, historically, sucks at most of the things it does.

If one person has a problem, what about that one person making better choices and doing things to better his or her situation? And I'm not talking about people who are unable to work. I am talking about people who can work and do not. Why is it everyone else's responsibility to provide for those? If the person two towns over from you goes to the casino and gambles away his paycheck or spends himself into a mountain of debt buying things he doesn't need and can't afford, why is that your problem to deal with? What about his own accountability?

The only winning situation is one in which everyone wins? Good luck finding that unicorn.


I'd be willing to help contribute to a pot even if some abuse it, for two reasons:

If it means lower cost on my part for the same services (such as a single payer health system, retirement at a reasonable age, etc).

If it means that, for whatever reason, I suddenly end up jobless or suffer a permanent injury (and nobody is immune to this), I can still have the security knowing that I can have the means to eat, live under shelter, and be cared for medically until I get back on my feet, thanks to a safety net system in place that takes care of all.

The unfortunate thing is, the only way to guarantee these things is if we all pay into it, else the system either becomes: 1. Unsustainable, or, 2. Too costly for the select who chose who want to keep it going for themselves.

Does such a universal system mean that there will be those who abuse and feed off of it who would otherwise help themselves? Yes, unfortunately. There will always be such a group, no matter how stringent the government is. But my priority is seeing affordable security on my part over worry about the other guy.
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#7New Post! May 16, 2017 @ 16:05:08
@Leon Said

I'd be willing to help contribute to a pot even if some abuse it, for two reasons:

If it means lower cost on my part for the same services (such as a single payer health system, retirement at a reasonable age, etc).

If it means that, for whatever reason, I suddenly end up jobless or suffer a permanent injury (and nobody is immune to this), I can still have the security knowing that I can have the means to eat, live under shelter, and be cared for medically until I get back on my feet, thanks to a safety net system in place that takes care of all.

The unfortunate thing is, the only way to guarantee these things is if we all pay into it, else the system either becomes: 1. Unsustainable, or, 2. Too costly for the select who chose who want to keep it going for themselves.

Does such a universal system mean that there will be those who abuse and feed off of it who would otherwise help themselves? Yes, unfortunately. There will always be such a group, no matter how stringent the government is. But my priority is seeing affordable security on my part over worry about the other guy.


The system you're talking about will, and I say this with a pretty high level of certainty, lead to a much larger percentage of people who will abuse it and it will eventually eat itself if it doesn't become a dictatorship first.

History is replete with that lesson.

That you are willing to contribute to "the pot" is fine, but there are a very many people who disagree and would not be willing. Is it okay to forcibly take their property from them, even if they've earned it by their own hands?

A lot of people point to Stalin and say "that wasn't real communism, if it was done properly I'm sure it would work and if I could do it this way..."

Honestly, the person who says this is a dangerous person. And let's say they did manage to "do it right" and redistribute wealth in only the saintliest way and retain every moral (which is still up for debate). They would last a year before someone stabbed them in their sleep and became the next Stalin.

It's a system that has just failed or is failing at a pretty strong rate every time it's been attempted and I don't know the answer, but I don't believe it's feasible.

Just opinions and a few questions...

Haven't talked to you in a while. Hope you're well man.
Leon On December 21, 2023




San Diego, California
#8New Post! May 16, 2017 @ 16:28:37
@Eaglebauer Said

The system you're talking about will, and I say this with a pretty high level of certainty, lead to a much larger percentage of people who will abuse it and it will eventually eat itself if it doesn't become a dictatorship first.

History is replete with that lesson.

That you are willing to contribute to "the pot" is fine, but there are a very many people who disagree and would not be willing. Is it okay to forcibly take their property from them, even if they've earned it by their own hands?

A lot of people point to Stalin and say "that wasn't real communism, if it was done properly I'm sure it would work and if I could do it this way..."

Honestly, the person who says this is a dangerous person. And let's say they did manage to "do it right" and redistribute wealth in only the saintliest way and retain every moral (which is still up for debate). They would last a year before someone stabbed them in their sleep and became the next Stalin.

It's a system that has just failed or is failing at a pretty strong rate every time it's been attempted and I don't know the answer, but I don't believe it's feasible.

Just opinions and a few questions...

Haven't talked to you in a while. Hope you're well man.


Thanks! Hope all is well with you.

The system I am talking about is currently practiced all over Western Europe and Scandinavia, and as far as I can tell, hasn't "eaten" itself or led to a dictatorship in any of those countries. In fact, they seem to be doing pretty well under such a system.

The failures are when the system is not democratically elected by those who are democratically elected, but forced on by a small group of revolutionaries who intent to maintain total control by force. Then abuses by those in command are much more at risk and usually do increasingly occur, at the expense of the people, which inevitably leads to a horribly run and managed system in terms of benefit for the people, if not outright collapse. This is what happened in Communist nations and is what you're talking about.

That's why I stated in a post before my reply to yours that socialism is workable if it is under a democratic government, not a totalitarianism. This way, if it isn't working, fixes can occur that work for the people, as opposed to the leadership, voted by the people. Which is what is happening in Western Europe and Scandinavia. It's never going to be perfect, no, but it is probably better than what anyone else can come up with when it comes to ensuring affordable security for all.
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#9New Post! May 16, 2017 @ 17:03:20
@Leon Said

Thanks! Hope all is well with you.

The system I am talking about is currently practiced all over Western Europe and Scandinavia, and as far as I can tell, hasn't "eaten" itself or led to a dictatorship in any of those countries. In fact, they seem to be doing pretty well under such a system.


You're not talking about socialism then?

Quote:

The failures are when the system is not democratically elected by those who are democratically elected, but forced on by a small group of revolutionaries who intent to maintain total control by force. Then abuses by those in command are much more at risk and usually do increasingly occur, at the expense of the people, which inevitably leads to a horribly run and managed system in terms of benefit for the people, if not outright collapse. This is what happened in Communist nations and is what you're talking about.

That's why I stated in a post before my reply to yours that socialism is workable if it is under a democratic government, not a totalitarianism. This way, if it isn't working, fixes can occur that work for the people, as opposed to the leadership, voted by the people. Which is what is happening in Western Europe and Scandinavia. It's never going to be perfect, no, but it is probably better than what anyone else can come up with when it comes to ensuring affordable security for all.


Here is why I say you aren't talking about socialism...

Democratic socialism isn't socialism. It's just not...regular socialism puts the means of production into the hands of the state. In places like Scandinavia and other Western European countries, as with just about every other area of the world that is actually developed, the means of production are primarily owned privately and not by the government or the community. All it really means is that there will be more limitations on what those private owners are allowed to make compared to their employees and that their employees can work for higher minimum wages.

A lot of people see this as a good thing. A lot of people don't.
Leon On December 21, 2023




San Diego, California
#10New Post! May 16, 2017 @ 17:37:01
@Eaglebauer Said

You're not talking about socialism then?



Here is why I say you aren't talking about socialism...

Democratic socialism isn't socialism. It's just not...regular socialism puts the means of production into the hands of the state. In places like Scandinavia and other Western European countries, as with just about every other area of the world that is actually developed, the means of production are primarily owned privately and not by the government or the community. All it really means is that there will be more limitations on what those private owners are allowed to make compared to their employees and that their employees can work for higher minimum wages.

A lot of people see this as a good thing. A lot of people don't.


Okay, although I've always heard the system as practiced in Sweden, Germany, etc as socialism, which is why I thought it appropriate for this thread. If you want us to call it something else though, then that is fine by me. Whatever it is, I do see it as a good solution.

If you define socialism as only that which is practiced by Communist governments, which, based on your description seems to be the case, then I do not see it as a solution, for the reasons explained earlier. (That is, Communist with a capital "C" - true communism has never been practiced by a government and never will.)
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#11New Post! May 17, 2017 @ 14:34:20
@Leon Said

Okay, although I've always heard the system as practiced in Sweden, Germany, etc as socialism, which is why I thought it appropriate for this thread. If you want us to call it something else though, then that is fine by me. Whatever it is, I do see it as a good solution.

If you define socialism as only that which is practiced by Communist governments, which, based on your description seems to be the case, then I do not see it as a solution, for the reasons explained earlier. (That is, Communist with a capital "C" - true communism has never been practiced by a government and never will.)



Okay. Fair enough.

There are critics who say that the affluent picture of Nordic countries is kind of misleading though when looking at things with a more macrocosmic view. Most of the wealth that has made the Scandinavian economy as robust as it's been in the latter part of the 20th century was built long before socialist leaning took hold there. Sweden was the fastest growing economy in the entire world from the 1870s into the 1930s but when the Swedish state began expanding rapidly in 1975, the economy slowed exponentially, and by the mid 90s they had gone from being the 4th richest in the world to the 13th. Since then...since the 90s, Scandinavian governments have actually been going through a systematic reduction in size. Denmark actually cut unemployment benefits out of necessity. Some would say that in the Nordic model we are seeing the top of an arc right now that will ultimately take a downturn and eventually end up leading back to more capitalist roots.

Nordic voters are also starting to take notice as they realize that the standard of living has become heightened and it turns out that not very many people want to pay twice the amount a car is worth while having 60% of their income taxed.

The other factors no one seems to be addressing is that Scandinavian countries are not only ethnically and culturally homogeneous (of course Sanders supports it...Scandinavia looks a lot like Vermont), which in a Utopian world wouldn't matter but does in the real world, but they also don't have to worry about a huge defense budget because they aren't major world powers on the same level as the US or China. Incidentally, they along with many others, also have the benefit of the US shouldering over 70% of the pot for NATO which incidentally will probably also have to change if we become democratically socialist.

Detractors also make note of the fact that pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. And they view pure democratic socialism as three men in a room...one with 50 dollars and two with none. Guess which way the vote will go when they decide what happens to the 50 dollars the one has earned? The moralistic argument is that voting to take someone's property from them does not make it correct. Theft by vote is still theft, isn't it?

The effort should be focused on how we make poor people less poor, I don't think anyone can argue that. The easy go to is to address it by asking the question how do we make the rich less rich, but a lot of folks (and not all of them rich) seem to think that is a morally flawed solution that will lead to collapse for almost everyone in the end.

(I might be playing devil's advocate somewhat here)
Leon On December 21, 2023




San Diego, California
#12New Post! May 17, 2017 @ 19:21:57
@Eaglebauer Said

Okay. Fair enough.

There are critics who say that the affluent picture of Nordic countries is kind of misleading though when looking at things with a more macrocosmic view. Most of the wealth that has made the Scandinavian economy as robust as it's been in the latter part of the 20th century was built long before socialist leaning took hold there. Sweden was the fastest growing economy in the entire world from the 1870s into the 1930s but when the Swedish state began expanding rapidly in 1975, the economy slowed exponentially, and by the mid 90s they had gone from being the 4th richest in the world to the 13th. Since then...since the 90s, Scandinavian governments have actually been going through a systematic reduction in size. Denmark actually cut unemployment benefits out of necessity. Some would say that in the Nordic model we are seeing the top of an arc right now that will ultimately take a downturn and eventually end up leading back to more capitalist roots.

Nordic voters are also starting to take notice as they realize that the standard of living has become heightened and it turns out that not very many people want to pay twice the amount a car is worth while having 60% of their income taxed.

The other factors no one seems to be addressing is that Scandinavian countries are not only ethnically and culturally homogeneous (of course Sanders supports it...Scandinavia looks a lot like Vermont), which in a Utopian world wouldn't matter but does in the real world, but they also don't have to worry about a huge defense budget because they aren't major world powers on the same level as the US or China. Incidentally, they along with many others, also have the benefit of the US shouldering over 70% of the pot for NATO which incidentally will probably also have to change if we become democratically socialist.

Detractors also make note of the fact that pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. And they view pure democratic socialism as three men in a room...one with 50 dollars and two with none. Guess which way the vote will go when they decide what happens to the 50 dollars the one has earned? The moralistic argument is that voting to take someone's property from them does not make it correct. Theft by vote is still theft, isn't it?

The effort should be focused on how we make poor people less poor, I don't think anyone can argue that. The easy go to is to address it by asking the question how do we make the rich less rich, but a lot of folks (and not all of them rich) seem to think that is a morally flawed solution that will lead to collapse for almost everyone in the end.

(I might be playing devil's advocate somewhat here)


I think a good balance is the best solution really. We cannot go towards either extreme without extreme problems that result.

If we have a pure capitalistic system where everyone is responsible for their own and, therefore, only rewards winners and with no collective regard for the losers, then we eventually end up with an oligarchy, a system where the winners make conditions impossible for the losers to get out of, either through Upton Sinclair-like conditions on the bottom, monopolies among the middle, and/or corporate lobbying on the top, all of which have been very real issues in our capitalistic nation's 250 years of existence.

If we have a purely Communist system, where the government owns, controls, and distributes all wealth, then individual freedoms are taken away entirely and nobody has an incentive to be more productive, creative, or even earn more than they would otherwise be inclined to and many are downright unhappy.

A good solution still allows for capitalism, ownership, and individual freedoms for everyone to earn more and as much as they want, yet also has a safety net that ensures the losers that inherently result under such a competitive system will not be left to buckle, wither, and/or die, but ensures that they can reasonably remain in the competition.

This means we must take care of our labor force, our sick, and, yes, even our poor to a degree for that to be most effective. Sure, many are in these predicaments who could have done better to stay out of them, but many are in such situations without fault of their own. People get injured or chronically ill, get laid off, lose homes, get widowed, get into debt for reasons beyond their control, have to drop out of college for reasons beyond their control, or are or born into conditions that make it extremely harder to get out of than it would be for a child born in a white upper middle class family with a white picket fence and parents who stayed together. I would support a system that provides welfare in exchange for work, no problem, but there DOES need to be some sort of welfare that provides only the basics - things such as food, cheap clothing, and a shelter, at least until they can support themselves again, if they can.

Yes, there will be those who leech off of such a safety net and are satisfied with just those boring basics, just as there will be those who abuse economic clout at the expense of others under capitalism that creates such situations for many. But we all still benefit more from such a system than would otherwise, even with those leeches or capitalistic abusers.

Even monetarily. For example, if we all pay into a system that takes care of our medical needs and retirement needs, the amount that we have to pay for such is less than what we would pay if we only each paid our own for each. And that is not even considering the fact that without such a system we pay for emergency care anyways for those who are not under insurance, which drives up the cost of insurance for everyone who does pay. Furthermore, we are stuck with public safety issues that can eventually turn catastrophic if we don't take care of those who are unable to pay for health care and get sick or don't take care of the elderly who are unable to support themselves, all of which we also end up paying for it in the long term, including monetarily.

And don't even get me started in industrialized-driven climate change.

The same applies to those earning under the poverty level, those who cannot afford childcare, and so on. Crime increases, and again, we all pay for it as a result. The same even goes for infrastructure (including utilities), education, and so forth. We are already paying for the benefit of all to partake in with all those things, and would end up paying a lot more if we each had to pave our own roads, well our own water, and educate our kids ourselves or pay for private schools.

Like it or not we live in a community and because we live in a community, we are going to have to help each other out a bit if we all want to benefit, save, and live in a more secure environment.

Again, though, I'm FOR capitalism. I support a system that rewards hard effort and earning as much as you can, and for the existence of profit making corporations. But I also support a safety net as well, as it benefits all of us, both monetarily and security-wise. I think we can have a nice balance of both. Hence why I admire the European/Scandinavian system.

Time will only tell I guess what ultimately happens in regards to these Scandinavian countries. I certainly cannot refute any of what you are saying regarding predictions on them, but I will say this, though: I have a hunch they will continue to be alright. Why? Because they are in democratically run governments. This means that fixes are always possible when things are not working like they should be, especially when not under the heavy influence of lobbyists from the earlier corporations I mentioned.

And, yes, I do know about the argument that we spend too much on defense to be able to afford what these Scandinavian countries are able to afford. I think the better solution to that then would be - DON'T spend too much on defense. Or do we really need to continue being the world's police, intervening in places like Iraq, and inadvertently creating more crisis such as ISIS? No, I think we need to solve our own domestic problems as a priority rather than the opposite. Studies have shown that the money spent on the war in Iraq alone would have been enough to take care of everything I am proposing and then some.
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#13New Post! May 17, 2017 @ 19:49:57
@Leon Said

I think a good balance is the best solution really. We cannot go towards either extreme without extreme problems that result.

If we have a pure capitalistic system where everyone is responsible for their own and, therefore, only rewards winners and with no collective regard for the losers, then we eventually end up with an oligarchy, a system where the winners make conditions impossible for the losers to get out of, either through Upton Sinclair-like conditions on the bottom, monopolies among the middle, and/or corporate lobbying on the top, all of which have been very real issues in our capitalistic nation's 250 years of existence.

If we have a purely Communist system, where the government owns, controls, and distributes all wealth, then individual freedoms are taken away entirely and nobody has an incentive to be more productive, creative, or even earn more than they would otherwise be inclined to and many are downright unhappy.

A good solution still allows for capitalism, ownership, and individual freedoms for everyone to earn more and as much as they want, yet also has a safety net that ensures the losers that inherently result under such a competitive system will not be left to buckle, wither, and/or die, but ensures that they can reasonably remain in the competition.

This means we must take care of our labor force, our sick, and, yes, even our poor to a degree for that to be most effective. Sure, many are in these predicaments who could have done better to stay out of them, but many are in such situations without fault of their own. People get injured or chronically ill, get laid off, lose homes, get widowed, get into debt for reasons beyond their control, have to drop out of college for reasons beyond their control, or are or born into conditions that make it extremely harder to get out of than it would be for a child born in a white upper middle class family with a white picket fence and parents who stayed together. I would support a system that provides welfare in exchange for work, no problem, but there DOES need to be some sort of welfare that provides only the basics - things such as food, cheap clothing, and a shelter, at least until they can support themselves again, if they can.

Yes, there will be those who leech off of such a safety net and are satisfied with just those boring basics, just as there will be those who abuse economic clout at the expense of others under capitalism that creates such situations for many. But we all still benefit more from such a system than would otherwise, even with those leeches or capitalistic abusers.

Even monetarily. For example, if we all pay into a system that takes care of our medical needs and retirement needs, the amount that we have to pay for such is less than what we would pay if we only each paid our own for each. And that is not even considering the fact that without such a system we pay for emergency care anyways for those who are not under insurance, which drives up the cost of insurance for everyone who does pay. Furthermore, we are stuck with public safety issues that can eventually turn catastrophic if we don't take care of those who are unable to pay for health care and get sick or don't take care of the elderly who are unable to support themselves, all of which we also end up paying for it in the long term, including monetarily.

And don't even get me started in industrialized-driven climate change.

The same applies to those earning under the poverty level, those who cannot afford childcare, and so on. Crime increases, and again, we all pay for it as a result. The same even goes for infrastructure (including utilities), education, and so forth. We are already paying for the benefit of all to partake in with all those things, and would end up paying a lot more if we each had to pave our own roads, well our own water, and educate our kids ourselves or pay for private schools.

Like it or not we live in a community and because we live in a community, we are going to have to help each other out a bit if we all want to benefit, save, and live in a more secure environment.

Again, though, I'm FOR capitalism. I support a system that rewards hard effort and earning as much as you can, and for the existence of profit making corporations. But I also support a safety net as well, as it benefits all of us, both monetarily and security-wise. I think we can have a nice balance of both. Hence why I admire the European/Scandinavian system.

Time will only tell I guess what ultimately happens in regards to these Scandinavian countries. I certainly cannot refute any of what you are saying regarding predictions on them, but I will say this, though: I have a hunch they will continue to be alright. Why? Because they are in democratically run governments. This means that fixes are always possible when things are not working like they should be, especially when not under the heavy influence of lobbyists from the earlier corporations I mentioned.

And, yes, I do know about the argument that we spend too much on defense to be able to afford what these Scandinavian countries are able to afford. I think the better solution to that then would be - DON'T spend too much on defense. Or do we really need to continue being the world's police, intervening in places like Iraq, and inadvertently creating more crisis such as ISIS? No, I think we need to solve our own domestic problems as a priority rather than the opposite. Studies have shown that the money spent on the war in Iraq alone would have been enough to take care of everything I am proposing and then some.



Thanks for putting what's obviously a lot of thought into responding...I'm kinda busy at the moment but will read this with some attention soon.
Leon On December 21, 2023




San Diego, California
#14New Post! May 17, 2017 @ 20:17:43
@Eaglebauer Said

Thanks for putting what's obviously a lot of thought into responding...I'm kinda busy at the moment but will read this with some attention soon.


No worries! Looking forward to it.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Jokes & Humor
Tue Jan 29, 2008 @ 12:09
1 347
New posts   Society & Lifestyles
Sat May 06, 2006 @ 16:23
9 1022
New posts   Politics
Fri Oct 28, 2016 @ 22:10
15 763
New posts   Society & Lifestyles
Tue Sep 19, 2006 @ 04:13
9 1131
New posts   Random
Wed Jul 25, 2012 @ 02:29
5 922