Perspectives on different forms of government

Well i was pondering on the different forms of government the other day and wondering why none of them truly work 100%. I always came back to one conclusion, systems for governing are based on the sole idea that the people who are at the head of that government and the people they govern are all good people. Now we all know that the idea that everyone in a society can be good just isn't true, greed, hatred, racism, fear all develop and destroy these governments. Thats why communism seems to me like it can't work unless it is formed in a small tightly knit community that all get along, aren't greedy, don't fear each other attempting to take power, and don't care about another's race and skin color. But if all people were good, socialism, communism, etc etc would all work perfectly. Any takes?

Meximan wrote:

systems for governing are based on the sole idea that the people who are at the head of that government and the people they govern are all good people.

I don't know if that's true. Its pretty clear when you read about the ideas of the people who set up the US government, for example, that they accounted (to some extent) for the influences of greed and corruption. I'm not claiming that worked out well, but there's a lot of talk about how the founding fathers tried to construct a government that would be capable of checking the influences of "factions" and also about how to manipulate self interest so that it was beneficial rather than detrimental to society.

Quote :

Now we all know that the idea that everyone in a society can be good just isn't true, greed, hatred, racism, fear all develop and destroy these governments. Thats why communism seems to me like it can't work unless it is formed in a small tightly knit community that all get along, aren't greedy, don't fear each other attempting to take power, and don't care about another's race and skin color. But if all people were good, socialism, communism, etc etc would all work perfectly. Any takes?

To me communism seems like it can't work because you can't just take an idea that someone wrote down and try to make society fit that idea. Its not just a question of moral character.

Obviously there are a lot of flaws to communism. Socialists and communists that I've met often cite Cuba as a success story of communism but that's just not true. I'm not someone who supports pure laissez-faire policies and I'm not in favor of the US policies in regard to Cuba but there definitely is something wrong when you can make the same amount of money for being a waiter and being a neurosurgeon. And obviously the Cuban people don't enjoy the civil liberties that they ought to, but I think that has more to do with the fact that communist regimes like Cuba feel threatened and insecure because of hardline policies taken against them by other countries (like the United States). Outside threats coupled with the fact that there economic polices are weak cause the insecure government to crack down unreasonably on dissenters. I don't think that communism results in authoritarianism purely because of the government's control of the economy but a combination of things.
That said I think that purely capitalist pro-business policies are a mistake also. There have to be regulations on business, because if corporations wield to much influence and the government fails to enact laws to keep them in line ( or fails to enforce them) that can hurt people as well.

I guess I'm in favor of a mixed economy. I don't think everything should be a commodity, but I do think competition and economic freedoms are important for the economy.

Anyways. I'm stoned and kind of rambling so if that didn't make sense sorry.
Good topic though.

Makes sense to me and you bring up lots of good points, especially about the i guess i would call it "over equality" of communism, why would a garbage man with a high school diploma be getting paid the same amount as a man who worked another 13 years at school while being very poor, college+med school+ being an intern=being very poor for a while, be paid equally? i personally would like a mix between a true democracy and anarchy as so defined "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder.) But is bound by a social code ." this seems like it would work in a small group of good people. What makes me think a small group of good people would be the best to sustain a self governing commune is the example of the amish, although they have very strict social and religious rules, their methods seem to work, they are peaceful and live simple lives. They also give their people a chance to leave and experience the world, but many come back because their lifestyle provides calm, and gain with hard work

Meximan wrote:

They also give their people a chance to leave and experience the world, but many come back because their lifestyle provides calm, and gain with hard work

No, they go back because they are not used to the cold hard world on "the outside". If you're not used to a big city with heavy traffic and violence you would want to back real bad and as soon as possible. It's the same if you'd put someone who lived in a tribe in the middle of a jungle in the middle of London. They would be confused and scared of all the (for them) strange sounds, structures and vehicles.

If I had the choice of living with a nomadic tribe in Mongolia with the danger of giant sandworms eating me and sleeping in tiny tents or living where I am now (which I'm used to), I don't think I would enjoy Mongolia for a long time. It's probably the same story if they came here.
What I'm saying is they're not given a fair chance.

But this is a little bit offtopic, I suppose

I suppose you've got me there, but most of humanity lives within their own comfort zones anyways, helps keep lots of us alive, guess its just human nature to go back to what you're used to, but i think the fact that they somewhat experience the outside world keeps them from being blissfully ignorant about the violence and technology of the outside world, and true i wouldn't wanna leave my way of life either. This reminds me of a really great book that is somewhat on this topic of leaving the comfort zone, the book is called "The Alchemist" by Paulo Coelho, anyone read it?

I think I got you again!

Meximan wrote:

"A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder.) But is bound by a social code ."

How does this work? What's disorder and what isn't? You need to define that, right? Like, making laws? Doesn't that destroy the anarchistic part?

Disorder is defined as
.
lack of order or regular arrangement; confusion: Your room is in utter disorder.
2.
an irregularity: a disorder in legal proceedings.
3.
breach of order; disorderly conduct; public disturbance.
4.
a disturbance in physical or mental health or functions; malady or dysfunction: a mild stomach disorde
r.
by dictionary.com but really is up to opinion, in my opinion i like #3

and about making laws, its more a "social code" such as we wont really like it if you rape and kill our daughters, and since there are no rules if you do rape and kill our daughters we'll rape you up the bum with a rake then murder you ourselves.

But as Noam Chomsky (his name is hard to Spell ) described how it would generally work is there really is no authority unless it is truly needed and its on a much smaller scale, and by truly needed he means if it endangers ones health without their consent, such as a mother protecting her child from sticking a fork in a electrical socket, that is the form of authority i would like. And the true democracy part means if there is a major problem in this small society why not have everyone vote on the way to deal with it, such as if we're having a drought should we put a limit on the amount of water people can use each day to preserve water to drink and for the crops so we can survive and only do this for the duration of the drought, or should we just leave it be? the whole idea is generally let people do whatever the fuck they want as long as they aren't harming others, if they wanna participate in self destructive behaviors, who are we to stop them?

But if you don't make laws, the public disturbance may not be viewed as a public disturbance by others.

Let's say you have a sister and I kill her. You obviously wouldn't agree with me doing so, so you would call it disorder. What if I disagree with that and claim it's absolutely OK to kill people? Like you said, you would kill me. But then the people who like me will kill you. And the people you like will kill them. And the people who like them will kill the people who liked you. It would result in chaos and wars and that isn't a good thing.

We human beings need rules and laws. I think something like anarchy would only work if everybody had the same opinion about everything, but that's not the case. Everyone's a little bit different, which causes friction. Friction leads to arguments, arguments to fights, fights to injuries and death, to war etc. etc.

I agree with you on that, the way i stated it would hypothetically work if everyone thought the same, or if everyone were a good, genuine, kind person, you know that forms of government have predicted lifespans before it crumbles and there is a revolution, In the U.S. our form of government is long overdue a revolution. But anyways i can see your point on human beings needing rules and laws i can't really argue on that considering that as a whole if we didnt have rules and laws we'd be done over

anyways i thin this is a good debate , but seriously check out the alchemist I read it 3 times in one week

Meximan wrote:

anyways i thin this is a good debate

Agreed. You seem like a cool person to debate with!

Tim wrote:

Meximan wrote:

anyways i thin this is a good debate

Agreed. You seem like a cool person to debate with!

Thanks man debating always seems to teach me something new so i enjoy it

Meximan wrote:

and about making laws, its more a "social code" such as we wont really like it if you rape and kill our daughters, and since there are no rules if you do rape and kill our daughters we'll rape you up the bum with a rake then murder you ourselves.

I used to be into the whole idea of tribal anarchy but I think that in the absence of a substantial code of law and regulating force, groups will just form to exert authority over other groups unless there are laws that prevent them from doing so. And if that were the case then it wouldn't be anarchy.
The idea of a social code kind of irks me. Wouldn't that result in mob rule? And leave room for people to do things that harm others indirectly?
The idea of a social contract, on the other hand, a government that is based on the consent of the governed but enforces the law when they have to seems more credible to me.

Still, I wonder about how fit people are to govern themselves at all lately. But the problems with pure democracy rather than representative is a whole other issue I guess.

The problem is people. We mess everything up. A perfect government would be one without people.

True about people screwing over others but this goes back to my original thought, if everyone was good and didn't have the want or urge to harm others it would work!!! this is all theoretical because there really is no perfect government and there's no such thing as a society full of "good people" as defined by myself.

And the U.S. is partially built upon the idea that the people aren't smart enough to govern themselves, and i think that with all the bull that happens in our government, we still have the closest thing to a truly free and safe country in the world

I bet mine is safer. And I can do pretty much whatever I like to do.

Tim wrote:

I bet mine is safer. And I can do pretty much whatever I like to do.

wha?

Speaking of aid, im not a big fan of Obama, and one thing that truly upsets me about him is that he is trying to make buddy buddy with all the wrong people, and by wrong people i mean those who are what i would call "evil" he is trying to make friends with Iranian leaders and is ignoring the nation of Israel, and truthfully Israel is more like the U.S. than any other country in that region in the aspect of freedom, Israel allows its women to do what they will, get an education, choose their husbands, and hell even drive, while many middle eastern countries condemn this and will even murder women who chose to stand up and get an education.

They also occasionally launch unprovoked attacks on Middle Eastern nations and oppress their region's native people. So yeah, Israel is a lot like the U.S..

I think the point was missed in that last comment, the point is who should the U.S. be trying to get buddy buddy with, and who they shouldn't, and i believe Iran is a bad choice

I see what you mean but from what i've seen it looks to me like he overlooks our greater allies for those who give us no real support

Israel does some horrible things.
They may be a 'democracy' but the occupation of Palestine and particularly the blockade of Gaza are pretty inhumane.
I mean, I try to be as objective as I can about the conflict over Palestine but what it comes down to is Israel is this big US funded bully, and while Hamas certainly does things that are morally reprehensible, the Palestinians (who have no standing army, no real sovereignty and a bad economy) are no match for Israel's US funded bombs. The amount of homeless in Gaza and the lack of medical care, economic opportunity and basic supplies to meet basic needs there are because of the blockade that Israel refuses to lift even though its against international law. So yeah, Israel might be like the US in some ways (partly because we give them so much money) but people have a really glorified idea of Israel as the lone democracy of the middle east which is kind of inaccurate, I think. I mean, the people of Israel might be treated well by their government (although I doubt all of them like the mandatory military service) but the things their government does to other groups are pretty fucked up.

<--My profile picture is of the Gaza strip. There's still a huge amount of homelessness there because of the offensive in Gaza that was nearly two years ago where Israel killed like fourteen hundred people (40% women and children) and now they refuse to allow building materials in because Hamas might make rockets out of them.

Also, if there's anything about Obama I appreciate its that he does try to engage other countries that we haven't been on speaking terms with. Its not our job to tell other people what their governments should be like, and a lot of the countries that are so anti-american are like that because we are (or were at some point) constantly threatening their sovereignty, like I said about Cuba earlier, and is also true about Venezuela (George Bush tried to oust Hugo in a coup a few years ago but Hugo is actually pretty popular with the indigenous people of Venezuela in spite of his cult of personality and demagoguery so they brought him back) and probably Iran as well.

hyperballad wrote:

I saw Oliver Stone on CNN talking about how great Hugo Chavez is. I have a really close friend of mine who is actually from Venezuela, and she hates him with a passion. Yes, I think the US has a target set on Venezuela for its oil, but that does not mean we can overlook their government's infringement on their people's rights. My point is that as a liberal, I think we shouldn't praise left-wing dictatorships as a way to combat conservatism. Dictatorships of all ideologies are wrong.

I definitely don't support Hugo but he's better than Castro in that at least he was elected.
The problem with Venezuela is the only choices they have for leadership are the oil oligarchy where the wealth is concentrated that the US supports because we like to make money off of other countries' oil, and Hugo who is anti-imperialist, a socialist and kind of crazy and always shutting down things or taking them over with the government. I wouldn't vote for either. Hugo is kind of a prick. I think of him as kind of an Andrew Jackson or George Bush esque type of leader. He thinks that his popularity gives him license to do whatever he wants to.

Still I love this video.

hyperballad wrote:

To actually answer the question though, I'm in favor of a mixed economy. As for as the government is concerned, I think there needs to be a good combination of protection and personal freedom. I don't like using the terms "big government" and "small government", because I think both have been morphed into meaning "liberal" and "conservative" policies, even if it's not necessarily true. I think our government should provide a safety net for those who need help, but personal responsibility should still be promoted. We should also be minimal in foreign affairs, except for maybe aid. Aid is good, as long as it's smart and responsible. I just don't believe in starting wars or interfering with other wars, because then we create more enemies by allying with other nations in war. George Washington had the right idea by not wanting to meddle in other countries' affairs, but we obviously have not kept to that.

The way I describe it, I believe in smart government. It intervenes when necessary, but also backs off when necessary too.

I'm with you, on the whole liberal and conservative policies and using big and small government.

But it seems now adays, if you try to say yeah I want a smaller governent, and then say yes I also believe in Social Welfare programs you get both sides at you. And the biggest problem with social welfare programs is lies started way back when, like the Cadillac queen.

Is it so wrong to want a government that stays out of my business yet can manage a safety net in case life happens?


I'd disagree with being minimal in foreign affairs. We need to not tell people what to do, I hate that about our country, how is our way the right way? Where do we get the right to say this?

We're too big to ignore the issues in the world, and the world is honestly too damn dangerous. My real standing is that, we have an obligation to help out people who are worse off then us.

And if that means starting a war, I'd be with that.