|
REPLY TO THREAD
|
|
Subject
|
Political/economic systems brainstorm thread: Are we in need of a *new* system or should we stick with the old ones?
|
|
User Name
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Font color:
Font:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original Message
|
I see a lot of debate and bickering over internet forums regarding this issue, specially on Ron Paul related threads.
It is clear our current system in the west is doomed to fail, this capitialistic-socialistic marriage that we have in most Europe and America is based on the premise that big gov can print money out of thin air and redistribute wealth forever, but it get's to a point when you have too much debt and can't finance all your big gov programs anymore without going completely bankrupt.
Some people, like Ron Paul, propose going back to some 1800's utopia that never was, and I must say I love the man and would vote for him if I was in the states, but even he himself admits that his system is not perfect. And despite the fact that he says there are things, like slavery and racial discrimination, that would never happen in these times("we're so past that") if states were given more power as he advocates, is that really true?
I think that implementing Ron Paul's vision would fragment America into a more natural pattern if you will, instead of the forced association big gov enforces right now. And maybe that, although painful, would actually be good for America.
But giving more power to the people always has to take into consideration what kind of people you're dealing with, what is the morality of your population? Would they make great choices if given the power? You may think you'd make great choices but what happens when the choices your neighbor makes are not in harmony with your views?
So what are our choices besides the admitedly flawed libertarian system that Ron Paul proposes?
Communism has been proven to turn into an authoritarian monster everywhere it has been implemented.
Socialism doesn't seem to work except than in very localized areas with a homogeneous population which already worked well without it anyhow. But when implemented in hetereogeneous societies, specially multicultural ones, where there's a disparity in productivity output, there always ends up being that the more productive segment of the population feels they're being robbed of their work to support those who don't want to do the same amount of effort.
We have also the view that a global government, that centralizes all economic, political and military power would do us good, starting from the premise that people are basically worthless and need to be ruled with an iron fist otherwise they will engage in theft, rape, wars and other atrocities (and which is actually founded on some strong historical foundations).
This leads me to anarchy, some people say no government would be the best choice, but then again, has there been any precedent to this? It seems that people left to their own means foments certain of the more amoral individuals to gather to exploit the more moral ones.
It is written in the Sumerian epics, the oldest written records we know of, that humanity was created as slaves to the "gods" and that these gods created kingship to administer the slaves for them. Could it be that humanity just can't be free, as much as we want to think we should?
I am green pinning this because I want to hear good arguments on this issue, so discuss away!
|
|
Pictures (click to insert)
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | | Next Page >> |
|
