Well, I wanted to combine a political structure with an economic one. There is also a parliamentary republic, like in Britain, and a Monarchy. I knew I didn't exhaust the possibilities. I had hoped I chose the major ones.
I was going to say what Prometheus said. As a libertarian, I'd probably have to pick #4, but that would also imply I like things just the way they are. Far from it!
Out of the choices given I had to vote for "democratic capitalism" since the other four would be totally unacceptable. But I agree with Prometheus that a constitutional republic is the best system -- it allows for government to express the will of the people while placing fundamental rights beyond the reach of being breached by the democratic process (as our Bill of Rights does, or is supposed to do).
A constitutional republic could be combined with almost any kind of economic system, but the historical record seems to show that regulated capitalism works best.
I'm curious why anarchism is listed. Anarchism isn't a system of government, for the same reason that atheism isn't a religion.
I was just curious about anarchism. It's the position that no government is the best government. There is a lot of literature about it.
I don't consider polls like these anything close to being scientific. I know for a fact that some Christians vote on the most ridiculous views to make us look bad. But on the other hand most visitors here by far are skeptics.
I also wondered why you would not allow the choice of a Constitutional Republic!
Are you suggesting that since money/profit is the driving force of most decision-making politically, that we have to have the economic considered in our choice? Then, I would consider the best choice of government, a Capitialistic Democracy. The problem is that money CAN distort values and means to goals. But, at the same time, without competition, there is little incentive to excellence, unless one has chosen a certain profession that limits economic prosperity (but, this is a free choice of the individual, not a system that imposes itself).
The other systems limit economic choice and freedom, which undermines "moral choice", itself. The individual must be allowed to determine what his values are and where his choice to make money or not will be. And then, what he will do with the money he makes, which is a reward for the work he does.
Democracy is one thing, capitalism is another. Or at least so many respondents might believe. So how are those who, for instance, favor democracy but oppose capitalism,--how are they to vote?
James, I don't think it is a matter of opposing capitalism, per se. It is really a matter of liberty and "voice". That are two of the ultimate values of American society, aren't they? And I believe they should be universal values, as they represent basic human rights.
I like "Infidel753"s response. Our "Bill of Rights" puts the individual's right out of the reach of the "mob"!!! That is a necessary distincition, I think.
And representation is a very important value, indeed!
I voted Marxist socialism, but I think a mixed economy of capitalist and socialist structures with a democratic government makes the most sense.
Capitalism needs to be reigned by heavy regulation or it begins to violate the rights of the population, and socialism needs to allow for some of the economic freedom that comes with capitalism. So, mixed economy makes the most sense to me. But I'm not an economist, so I'm no expert.
Although I voted for democratic capitalism, the only way capitalism can be truly democratic is if government puts some restraints on free market capitalism. It was unrestrained capitalism (absence of governmental regulations on the financial sector) that got us into our current economic crisis and creates conditions for the establishment of an oligarchy which is anything but democratic. Agree with magicshoemonkey that a mixture of capitalism and socialism is the best form of government
My problem with poll is that only the extreme options seems to ever have been used.
Communist Dictatorship, Anarchism, and theocracy.
I have never seen a democratic capitalism anywhere. When its democratic its never been capitalism. There may have been captilaism dictatorships, I think Chile came close under Pinochet, but in democratic countries the needs of the citizens seems to be stressed on behalf of free markets. Perhaps you can name one true democratic country with a true capitalist economy?
If we are not talking absolutes, then what seperates marxist socialism from democratic capitalism.
In China they have both capitalism, socialism, and democracy to some extend, which is also true in the US and Scandinavia.
Where would China, the US and say Sweden fall in your poll?
People just don't get that everyone is greedy and government is just another business.
Somehow I don't see how giving power to a select group and hoping they do the right thing because they claim to represent God or the Will of the People will solve anything.
My favorite analogy is of a little kid strapped into the back seat of a car, with a colorful horn and steering wheel in front of him, squealing with delight as he "drives" the car for daddy, who constantly praises and reminds him of his importance.
Every time I see a political convention I'm reminded that y'all haven't lost your faith yet. Not by a long shot. Daddy just promised you a new treat to distract your attentions away from your problems, is all. ;-)
Do you think that laissez-faire libertarians are the only ones who figured out the role that greed plays in our government? The common Marxist position is that the capitalist state exists as an instrument of class repression.
Libertarians like to give power to a select group - property owners, the ones who are already winning. Right of center governments are elected and the parts of the state that shrink are the ones perceived to benefit workers.
Libertarianism : classical liberalism for people who think that universal sufferage was a bad idea.
CS, I'm not sure yet what position you believe is better (you didn't explicitly call yourself a Marxist), so I don't yet know how to compare your worldview to mine.
I try not to even think about "classes." I don't see myself as being a member of any.
I never liked the term libertarian (although I'm stuck using the word). I'd rather call myself a liberal and call those presently using the term neolibs, but unfortunately few agree with me. :)
I'm just arguing from the premise that you best know how to run your life, and that it follows that people as a whole would be better off if they didn't have as many other hands in their pockets.
Suffrage isn't my biggest issue of contention by far, but since you mention it, I actually do think universal suffrage is a bad idea. I'd love to see everyone have to pass a civics exam to earn the privilege. I don't see where the "apathy vote" or the "ignorance vote" or the "oooh, he's so cute vote" can improve on the vote only being made available to an informed electorate (which anyone who really gives a dam can eventually become a part of). Maybe you can make the argument that it'd just be too dangerous to toy with restricting voting rights, and you might be right. Howard Zinn gave a nice antiwar speech a couple of months before he died, so maybe I should start seeing what else he had to say.
EVENTS ALLOWED BY OUR GOVERNMENT THAT COULD BE WHAT WAS SPOKEN OF IN BOOK OF THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST, THE WORLD WIDE FINANCIAL CRISIS BROUGHT ON BY CORPORATE GREED:
Most people who understand what happened in the American Industrial Revolution in recent History, know that Unions came into existence because “Big Business did not want to increase wages so they brought temporary workers to take their workers place to force them to accept the same or lower wages. The regular workers called those temporary workers “SCABS.” Unions are responsible for changing the 2 class system of: Rich and Poor to the 3 Class system of: Rich, Middle Class and Poor that made the United States of America very famous among the Nations of the World. I am not for mandatory unions, but I am for the Freedom in our Country to have Unions. I am not for these new World Capitalisms, where you can have a Communist China Government using some Capitalism at the expense of American Manufacturing Workers and becoming the new American Corporation “SCABS.” With www. Workers.com saying that we now have over 15,000,000 (Million) unemployed Americans. I want to ask you what do you think will happen to the United States of America if the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were to end and the most technological trained Armed Forces Personnel came home to seek employment along with the 15,000,000 (Million) now unemployed Americans?
IT WILL BE THE SAME THING THAT HAPPENED TO THE SOVIET UNION WHEN THE AFGHANISTAN WAR WAS OVER FOR THEM-ECONOMIC COLLAPSE.
The Soviet Union was fortunate that American Corporations invested in businesses and business services so that the Communist Russian Government could have some Capitalism to keep their Country afloat at the cost of American jobs like Bill Gates of Microsoft hiring Soviet Countries population as “SCABS” to take away American jobs.
I am for National Capitalism in the Nation that it originated in (The U.S.A.) and for foreign trade without HUGE DEFICITS. Corporate Greed to use cheap labor are leading to strengthening Communist China and Russia (Gog and Magog).
19 comments:
May I ask why "Constitutional Republic" was not one of the choices?
David McBride
Well, I wanted to combine a political structure with an economic one. There is also a parliamentary republic, like in Britain, and a Monarchy. I knew I didn't exhaust the possibilities. I had hoped I chose the major ones.
I was going to say what Prometheus said. As a libertarian, I'd probably have to pick #4, but that would also imply I like things just the way they are. Far from it!
Out of the choices given I had to vote for "democratic capitalism" since the other four would be totally unacceptable. But I agree with Prometheus that a constitutional republic is the best system -- it allows for government to express the will of the people while placing fundamental rights beyond the reach of being breached by the democratic process (as our Bill of Rights does, or is supposed to do).
A constitutional republic could be combined with almost any kind of economic system, but the historical record seems to show that regulated capitalism works best.
I'm curious why anarchism is listed. Anarchism isn't a system of government, for the same reason that atheism isn't a religion.
I was just curious about anarchism. It's the position that no government is the best government. There is a lot of literature about it.
I don't consider polls like these anything close to being scientific. I know for a fact that some Christians vote on the most ridiculous views to make us look bad. But on the other hand most visitors here by far are skeptics.
I also wondered why you would not allow the choice of a Constitutional Republic!
Are you suggesting that since money/profit is the driving force of most decision-making politically, that we have to have the economic considered in our choice?
Then, I would consider the best choice of government, a Capitialistic Democracy. The problem is that money CAN distort values and means to goals. But, at the same time, without competition, there is little incentive to excellence, unless one has chosen a certain profession that limits economic prosperity (but, this is a free choice of the individual, not a system that imposes itself).
The other systems limit economic choice and freedom, which undermines "moral choice", itself. The individual must be allowed to determine what his values are and where his choice to make money or not will be. And then, what he will do with the money he makes, which is a reward for the work he does.
What government do norway and iceland have? They seem to be doing the best.
Democracy is one thing, capitalism is another. Or at least so many respondents might believe. So how are those who, for instance, favor democracy but oppose capitalism,--how are they to vote?
Democratic Socialism would be nifty
James,
I don't think it is a matter of opposing capitalism, per se. It is really a matter of liberty and "voice". That are two of the ultimate values of American society, aren't they? And I believe they should be universal values, as they represent basic human rights.
I like "Infidel753"s response. Our "Bill of Rights" puts the individual's right out of the reach of the "mob"!!! That is a necessary distincition, I think.
And representation is a very important value, indeed!
Marxist socialism is in fact democratic socialism. That's why I distinguished it from communist dictatorship.
Oh well...
I voted Marxist socialism, but I think a mixed economy of capitalist and socialist structures with a democratic government makes the most sense.
Capitalism needs to be reigned by heavy regulation or it begins to violate the rights of the population, and socialism needs to allow for some of the economic freedom that comes with capitalism. So, mixed economy makes the most sense to me. But I'm not an economist, so I'm no expert.
Although I voted for democratic capitalism, the only way capitalism can be truly democratic is if government puts some restraints on free market capitalism. It was unrestrained capitalism (absence of governmental regulations on the financial sector) that got us into our current economic crisis and creates conditions for the establishment of an oligarchy which is anything but democratic. Agree with magicshoemonkey that a mixture of capitalism and socialism is the best form of government
My problem with poll is that only the extreme options seems to ever have been used.
Communist Dictatorship, Anarchism, and theocracy.
I have never seen a democratic capitalism anywhere. When its democratic its never been capitalism. There may have been captilaism dictatorships, I think Chile came close under Pinochet, but in democratic countries the needs of the citizens seems to be stressed on behalf of free markets. Perhaps you can name one true democratic country with a true capitalist economy?
If we are not talking absolutes, then what seperates marxist socialism from democratic capitalism.
In China they have both capitalism, socialism, and democracy to some extend, which is also true in the US and Scandinavia.
Where would China, the US and say Sweden fall in your poll?
I understand the criticisms of this poll. I just didn't want it to be too long with a list of ten choices. Sorry. Here are the reults. Any surprises?
Communist Dictatorship 8 (2%)
Marxist Socialism 64 (18%)
Anarchism 46 (12%)
Democratic Capitalism 215 (60%)
Theocracy 22 (6%)
People just don't get that everyone is greedy and government is just another business.
Somehow I don't see how giving power to a select group and hoping they do the right thing because they claim to represent God or the Will of the People will solve anything.
My favorite analogy is of a little kid strapped into the back seat of a car, with a colorful horn and steering wheel in front of him, squealing with delight as he "drives" the car for daddy, who constantly praises and reminds him of his importance.
Every time I see a political convention I'm reminded that y'all haven't lost your faith yet. Not by a long shot. Daddy just promised you a new treat to distract your attentions away from your problems, is all. ;-)
@Ismellaret:
Do you think that laissez-faire libertarians are the only ones who figured out the role that greed plays in our government? The common Marxist position is that the capitalist state exists as an instrument of class repression.
Libertarians like to give power to a select group - property owners, the ones who are already winning. Right of center governments are elected and the parts of the state that shrink are the ones perceived to benefit workers.
Libertarianism : classical liberalism for people who think that universal sufferage was a bad idea.
CS, I'm not sure yet what position you believe is better (you didn't explicitly call yourself a Marxist), so I don't yet know how to compare your worldview to mine.
I try not to even think about "classes." I don't see myself as being a member of any.
I never liked the term libertarian (although I'm stuck using the word). I'd rather call myself a liberal and call those presently using the term neolibs, but unfortunately few agree with me. :)
I'm just arguing from the premise that you best know how to run your life, and that it follows that people as a whole would be better off if they didn't have as many other hands in their pockets.
Suffrage isn't my biggest issue of contention by far, but since you mention it, I actually do think universal suffrage is a bad idea. I'd love to see everyone have to pass a civics exam to earn the privilege. I don't see where the "apathy vote" or the "ignorance vote" or the "oooh, he's so cute vote" can improve on the vote only being made available to an informed electorate (which anyone who really gives a dam can eventually become a part of). Maybe you can make the argument that it'd just be too dangerous to toy with restricting voting rights, and you might be right. Howard Zinn gave a nice antiwar speech a couple of months before he died, so maybe I should start seeing what else he had to say.
EVENTS ALLOWED BY OUR GOVERNMENT THAT COULD BE WHAT WAS SPOKEN OF IN BOOK OF THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST, THE WORLD WIDE FINANCIAL CRISIS BROUGHT ON BY CORPORATE GREED:
Most people who understand what happened in the American Industrial Revolution in recent History, know that Unions came into existence because “Big Business did not want to increase wages so they brought temporary workers to take their workers place to force them to accept the same or lower wages. The regular workers called those temporary workers “SCABS.” Unions are responsible for changing the 2 class system of: Rich and Poor to the 3 Class system of: Rich, Middle Class and Poor that made the United States of America very famous among the Nations of the World. I am not for mandatory unions, but I am for the Freedom in our Country to have Unions. I am not for these new World Capitalisms, where you can have a Communist China Government using some Capitalism at the expense of American Manufacturing Workers and becoming the new American Corporation “SCABS.” With www. Workers.com saying that we now have over 15,000,000 (Million) unemployed Americans. I want to ask you what do you think will happen to the United States of America if the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were to end and the most technological trained Armed Forces Personnel came home to seek employment along with the 15,000,000 (Million) now unemployed Americans?
IT WILL BE THE SAME THING THAT HAPPENED TO THE SOVIET UNION WHEN THE AFGHANISTAN WAR WAS OVER FOR THEM-ECONOMIC COLLAPSE.
The Soviet Union was fortunate that American Corporations invested in businesses and business services so that the Communist Russian Government could have some Capitalism to keep their Country afloat at the cost of American jobs like Bill Gates of Microsoft hiring Soviet Countries population as “SCABS” to take away American jobs.
I am for National Capitalism in the Nation that it originated in (The U.S.A.) and for foreign trade without HUGE DEFICITS. Corporate Greed to use cheap labor are leading to strengthening Communist China and Russia (Gog and Magog).
Post a Comment