 |
|  |
 |
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002 time: 05:28
|
|
I did something like this about a year ago...
My philosophy is more of a laissez faire that would actually extend into public and political systems...
My goal would to be to abolish many government programs that deal with the public and set up councils/boards monitored by the government to establish these institutions.
Example: Health Care Reform - Develop a council of medical care provider, drug manufactorers, and publicly elected units as well as a cabinet appoint member (moderator/monito). This council would act more like a corprate board that would deligate the issues surrounding universal health care. Money will come from the companies and corporations that they represent. Their taxes will go directly to this board, and not to the main government body. Also, tax breaks will be given to such industries that develop drugs, give care, administer said services. Thus, batches asprins made specificly to go to this board would not be taxed on their sales, from the manufacturer down to the consumer.
I think this can work for all fields, including welfare, disability, revenue collection and social security. I feel we should utilize the minds of these great economist, buisness developers/managers/CEOs, and engineers that we have to better society, thier personnal buisnesses, and the country on a whole.
I know that their will be fights for these positions amongst corporations. Thus, undeveloped rules would have to be put in place that impose the check and balances that are needed... This is almost one part removed of socialism, but at the same time is totally capitalist by giving decissions to corporations, yet offers them incentives for doing so. Limiting government involvement would save a lot of money in the run.
With the government not having to worry about many of these domestic issues they can focus more on foreign affairs and social issues.
May sound absurd, and for sure, checks and balances would need to be developed, but the idea of employing the most capable for the positions they are most capable of performing will take "government efficiency" of the list of classical oxymorons.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
cinch
|
|
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Jul 2002 time: 22:28
|
|
DF:
quote: But wait, governments are elected by and for the people of the US (for example). And in your example of allowing raised taxes and the like, why should the taxpayers fund other countries, who are not paying taxes to the government, and hence not contributing to your social welfare or health care funds? |
I suppose because I think that the countries that are 'on top' now won't always be on top; that it's better to help those less fortunate (through strategic spending, rather than just 'throwing money at the problem') than gorge ourselves in excess. I think I just haven't become disillusioned enough yet, in that I still see some intrinsic "Good" in at least attempting to help those less fortunate.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Cruddy
|
|
My political philosophy? To do the best thing to benefit the most number of people with the least amount of suffering and hardship.
In other words, either right or left policies, depending on the situation, with no preference for either on a long term basis.
I doubt if any political party would be successful with such a philosophy. But this being on one side or the other without any reason strikes me as well, unbalanced.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Buck Birdseed
|
 |
Khoon Ki Pyasi Dayan (1988)
Nov 2000 time: 05:28
|
|
Who believes in perpetuating conflict? I believe in as equal a society as is possible, but I do not believe that society should be on the terms of any one group but that all groups should have a say. Unlike a communist I recognise the reality of diversity, and even celebrate it.
I think the entire idea of being able to create one, conformist cultural entity with perfect operational knowledge where all differences are erased is bogus, even genuinely evil, and the reason why Communist states tend towards totalitarianism. Social groups that are not part of the dominant one are to be subdued and brought into the party line. Communism is a disturbingly right-wing ideology in its attitude to women, to homosexuals, to cultural sub-groups, all of whose ideas are ignored, all of whom are percecuted and turned subservient. A real society of the people would be one of all the people, not just the dominant groups in power.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Cruddy
|
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Who believes in perpetuating conflict? [QUOTE]
Arns manufacturers? Hostile powers from outside the conflict zone tha want to see a war bleed on? Politicians in democracies who want a vote winner? Any vested interest? The list is endless.
Move to Switzerland - IF you can afford it.
One party states are, by definition, totalitarianist states.
Communism ignores all ideas outside the scope of the One Party. So do Fascist and majority democracy governments (of the one party that's in power). Democracy certainly ignores the wishes of the minority.
Last edited by Cruddy on 14-05-2003 at 05:54
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000 time: 07:28
|
|
The proper word is "eliminate", Ozzy.  
quote: Who believes in perpetuating conflict? I believe in as equal a society as is possible, but I do not believe that society should be on the terms of any one group but that all groups should have a say. Unlike a communist I recognise the reality of diversity, and even celebrate it.
|
It's not about the "terms of any one group" is about the lack of "groups" whatsoever. "equal a society as possible" is not at the end of "All groups should have their say". Also, how would the "have their say" reach an actual decision? will it be a majoritarian one? ( please, don't say "compromise" , we've seen how well it works in contemporary society. )
quote: I think the entire idea of being able to create one, conformist cultural entity with perfect operational knowledge where all differences are erased is bogus, even genuinely evil, and the reason why Communist states tend towards totalitarianism.
|
Why so? a person when born is a clean slate. If everyone would study in similar schools, they would all learn the same things. Those things would be based on personal freedom, and the socialist constitution.
quote:
Social groups that are not part of the dominant one are to be subdued and brought into the party line.
|
What do you mean by social groups? do you mean cultures? social classes?
quote:
Communism is a disturbingly right-wing ideology in its attitude to women, to homosexuals, to cultural sub-groups, all of whose ideas are ignored, all of whom are percecuted and turned subservient.
|
How is communism naturally right wing? oh and cultural subgroups? If they're not playing by the rules, and creating different social normas, then call me authoritarian, I say "**** them".
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Communism is predominantly an economics model, not a political model. |
I wouldn't say so - more of a political belief ("ism") that can be misrepresented as an economic model. You checked the reading material I recommended on "...Heroes"? You'll find some (well, lots then) of words on what Communism is like from the receiving end.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28. Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|