Yay more politics!

Mav23

Swabbie
Banned
Well since everyone has gotten into a talk about the world fad ( :p ) I thought I'd chime in a little and ask everyone a question. If say, the world were divided into seperate nations all with different governmental philosophies, what kind of government would you have. I myself would have a purely capitalistic government. With the least amount of socialistic thinking possible. Howabout you?
 
Wow, that sure would fail badly... The problem with a pure capitalistic system is that, eventually, one entity ends up dominating the marketplace. This destroys the ability of a capitalistic system to function. The only way to maintain a capitalistic system is through 'socialistic' controls.
 
Liberal. A great deal of personal freedoms, minimal State, free enterprise. Just enought government to keep things running and protect our country.
 
A dictatorship, as that seems to be the only way to get anything done (At least around our university) :p
 
I myself prefer a Social-democratic system, like here in Quebec or in France. Lots of taxes, but the governement makes sure everyone can eat, have a home and get free health care. Governement owns some of the the legal human vice, like casinos, lotto and alchool stores so the profits funds the health care system and the governement in general. The key in our system is : let's make things fair and decent for everybody in the society. Our governement is people-centric, not system-centric (or systemic).

I think our way of doing thing is a good compromise between the "evil communism" (as Delance calls it) and savage capitalism. At least we're a democracy :) .
 
Here in Spain we have the same system, PopsiclePete. We have lot's of taxes, about 40% of your earnings for a start, but we have free health, education, cheap university, you get some money when unemployed, pension...It work pretty well, with the normal flaws, but in my opinion this system has a consequence that must be taken into consideration. Most European countries (not the UK) don't have an army that deserves that name. As a result, the US usually bombs what needs to be bombed, like in Kosovo, and the EU pays the bill, reconstructing what the bombs destroy. Not being able to stop a genocide at the doorsteps of our territory is deeply embarrasing. We were unable even to reach consensus about what to do. Now that I think about it France also was against that action :mad: Anyway, since then several governments in Europe (including the Spanish one) have started to build the EuroKorps, some kind of European Army. It has a looong way ahead, and not even the support of the big countries, but I think it is a necessity that we join our defense efforts to build a decent army that can be deployed anywhere in the world to do whatever needs to be done.

I think that's the problem that needs to be solved in Europe. This is probably not the case in Canada, PopsiclePete, as it is a bigger country. If our security could be kept by ourselves I think we would have a perfect system. But of course for a unified army we first need a unified foreign policy...and that sounds like Sci-Fi.

The day Morocco decides to invade our cities in the north of Africa we will see how far Europe's solidarity goes... :p
 
Originally posted by Zhakrin
Now that I think about it France also was against that action

How is that unusual? When the nazis were attacking Poland, the allied supreme commander, a french, missed the opportunity to attack the almost unguarded Germany. That didn't go well.
 
Originally posted by TC
Wow, that sure would fail badly... The problem with a pure capitalistic system is that, eventually, one entity ends up dominating the marketplace. This destroys the ability of a capitalistic system to function. The only way to maintain a capitalistic system is through 'socialistic' controls.

Not to sound defensive or anything (which I am being), this isn't about if you agree with me, just what your preference would be. Thanks for your understanding.
 
Originally posted by Mav23
Not to sound defensive or anything (which I am being), this isn't about if you agree with me, just what your preference would be. Thanks for your understanding.

Wow, what's the point if you aren't going to discuss the problems with stuff?
 
Originally posted by TC
Wow, what's the point if you aren't going to discuss the problems with stuff?

If you want a system where such thing is not a problem, I suggest communism.

http://www.theonion.com/onion3908/history_3908.html

"Soviets mourn death of Stalin - 'Who will crush our spirits and destroy our lives now?', ask distraught citizens."

"It seems like only yesterday that Stalin's thugs were battering me in an alley", said professor Grigori Vassely, "and then arresting me on fictitious charges because my lectures mentioned Thomas Jefferson once or twice. Who can replace so ruthless a tyrant? I doubt Malenkov can summon such hard, pure hatred. As far as I know, he has no paranoid vendetta against academia whatsoever. Stalin was simply one of a kind."
 
Originally posted by Mav23
... If say, the world were divided into seperate nations all with different governmental philosophies, what kind of government would you have....
Um, gee, last time I checked (1:43 PM EST), that was pretty much what we have ALREADY...

Originally posted by TC
... The problem with a pure capitalistic system is that, eventually, one entity ends up dominating the marketplace. This destroys the ability of a capitalistic system to function...
...Now if only someone would 'share' that info with Billy G....
 
Re: Re: Yay more politics!

Originally posted by Preacher
Um, gee, last time I checked (1:43 PM EST), that was pretty much what we have ALREADY..

Yeah, it was pretty tough to keep a sarcastic "GEE, WHAT A RADICAL IDEA!" at bay..
 
Originally posted by TC
What better way to make a point than through satire.

I’m not sure if that’s the case here, but you do of course realize that when you make sarcastic remark about satire you are defeating your own point? :)
 
I'd live in the woods and away from civilization. Barbarism must always ultimately triumph.
 
Originally posted by Delance
I’m not sure if that’s the case here, but you do of course realize that when you make sarcastic remark about satire you are defeating your own point? :)

No I'm not... And I wasn't being overly sarcastic either. Satire is quite a good way to help make a point without being too serious with yourself.
 
Back
Top