The Crusaders Claim It's Not a Crusade

[Duemellon]

Okay people, who are we kidding? This "democracy" thing is our religion nowadays. I mean, we're out there peddling it, evangelizing it, telling everyone how it's the only solution, and whenever we have the chance, forcing it on them.

Could we, for once, imagine the Iraqis could want something different than a representative democracy in our image? There are so many other models of government which have been successful that our committment to "granting them freedoms through democracy" is a bet telling in it's self-righteousness.

But everybody who's important is doing it. Right? UK has a form of it, Germany is like it, Japan is doing it, and Russia was reborn into it, right? So, because others are adapting to it and they are stable countires, the system must be idyllic? right?

Well the concept of theocracies was idyllic before in BC, and monarchies were all the rage in the middle-ages. Both of those models eventually fell through.

I'm just asking the question of:
Why can't we help them build a socialist society? or committee-based parliment-like system? or even let them divide their country up into smaller states? or allow them to subjegate themselves to other countries? If they so desired? Why must we hold their hand and show them the great-way-of-the-West and say "you'll love democracy, it's great! You get elected officials people didn't vote on, you get party-clashes and stagnation, you get company-driven society based on profit and exploitation of resources, it's great, everyone's doing it!"

Just once I'd like to hear our administration entertain the idea of not installing a government based on us. Then I'd believe this wasn't part of the greater crusade, the self-righteous, arrogant, and power-hungry, struggle to democratize the world in our image.

Through development of other democracies in smaller countries we will create a degree of loyalty/hegemony of these US-sympathetic entities, ruling the world through suggestion and deals that wouldn't go through in other societies. This is a new form of empire, I call it Democratic Feudalism.

[monkey neck]

Haven't you noticed that they want a democracy?

What we don't want is a theocracy over there, because if it does, all those troops that died, died in vain, because under an Islamic theocracy, it would more than likely go back to the way it was. After WWII, countries like India and others became more democratic, allowed women to vote, etc. Seems like it worked, doesn't it?

I do agree with you to a point, and I know you're not saying you want it to be a theocratic government, but if we leave it up to them, that's what it'll be. We need to have some influence there because it is in our best interest. That way we can get all their oil :rolleyes: . I'm afraid, though, that however it ends up, it will be markedly anti-American. They'll thank us for setting them free, but as you are seeing now, a week later, they hate us.

"You get elected officials people didn't vote on..."

Please, haven't we heard this somewhere before?

[solomon]

Overall I think that was a good post Duemellon.

People see our civilizaiton now, with how advanced we are, and they see democracy and they think they go together. But it's important to remember that correlation is not causation. Are we this successful BECAUSE of democracy, or DESPITE democracy? Personally, I think it's probably the latter.

The point you make about government-types losing their legitimacy is important too. That's why I think one of the most important things to do right now is work to DElegitimize the idea of democracy and welfare statism. It's a long road because, if anything, every US citizen is from birth raised to believe that the founders were infallible and that democracy is the end all be all of government.

Why can't we help them build a socialist society?

I think that would be bad.

or even let them divide their country up into smaller states?

I think that would be a great idea. I support succession anywhere. It would also do wonders to reduce ethnic tensions I think.

you get company-driven society based on profit and exploitation of resources,

Sigh. I'm not even going to bother.

Through development of other democracies in smaller countries we will create a degree of loyalty/hegemony of these US-sympathetic entities, ruling the world through suggestion and deals that wouldn't go through in other societies.

Using certain monetary tools becomes a lot easier too when you have a subservient democracy to deal with.

Solomon

[Danosaur]

I can agree to a point. Democracy doesn't mean freedom anyway. Many dictators have been elected. Just give me a Bill of Rights and an institution with the power to defend it and you can create whatever gov't you want. At the end of the day, it's the Bill of Rights that really matters to me.

[Duemellon]

Haven't you noticed that they want a democracy? hell, i'd love buttermilk if I only drank castor oil my whole life. Not to say they might not WANT democracy, but who would we put on television? those who say "hey, we want a new form of government unlike the democratic republic they have!"?

I am suspicous of the reporting on that. I mean, England, France, Spain, and others, have a successful and stable government. They aren't wholly a democratic republic. Switzerland, Norway, and others, have varying degrees of socialism and popular rule.

If our MAIN goal was to free the Iraqis from an evil man, why is it necessary to make them look, act, and live, like us afterwards? Democracy is not the shiznit. (ask Yosh, he'll let u kno)They'll thank us for setting them free, but as you are seeing now, a week later, they hate us. I doubt that will be the outcome, but we'll see. I think those who resent us are the ones bitter because we're forcing democracy on them and they wanted a shot at their own ruling party. When Afghnstn's government finally settles down, and then Iraq's, we'll see something interesting. We'll see their states acting like vassels to their motherland... creator... mentor... and supporter... US.

The thing that bothered me was the fact we said we wouldn't allow them to have an "Iranian government", ie: ran by a limited number of clerics. I mean, if the Clerics reached level 17 and can use 7th level prayers, then why not? Heck, give them the Mace of Cuthbert and it's time to move to Iraq.

Oh... sorry... i deviated.

but we are making it a point for them to develop a country based on non-religious laws. Please understand, this means we want them to base their laws on OUR moral standards and interpretations of murder, thievery, aldultry, etc, and NOT theirs.

Please see the other thread for the rest of where THAT above paragraph was going... (politics & religion= no, no)

But the religious aspect isn't the only part.

Socialism isn't bad. It can be a highly democratic, or a mostly communistic society. It helps regulate many needs, and supplies the populace with considerable freedoms. The biggest concern we have about endowing them with socialism is the thought that major Iraqi trade goods will fall under direct government control instead of having it in the hands of a highly-competitive and privatlely owned sector.

You can't have capitalism without a whole heap'uv democracy.

And as for the "getting public officials we didn't vote for" it wasn't JUST alluding to the current President, u'kno? His wasn't the first, won't be the last.

[Candyass]

We have become what we feared in the eighties...we are instituting our own "domino effect" in the middle east...democracy didn't work here in 2000 (we all know Gore won...at least in popular vote, don'tmention Florida). Democracy isn't working now...Remember free speech?????

[Candyass]

I guess I was looking at Afganistan, Iraq, and whatever the future might bring on...Syria, Iran, and Lybia...

But then again I'm just a poor liberal from the midwest watching MSNBC, what do I know...

SO...
Let's talk about regime change dictorships and the 2000 election...Ohhh, I might get in trouble for that one, Mr. Ashcroft.

[Danosaur]

What the hell makes you think Iraq wants anything resembling a socialist state. Besides Iraq cannot afford socialism, socialism is far too expensive. Look at our own state, we have been pushing closer and closer towards socialism over the past 70 years, and all we do is cry about how much our government cost to run. Right now Americans spend close to 50% of their income on taxes. Breakdown the socialist countries and you will find that more money is being spent on government than is being made to support it. Sweden has an outrages deficit rate for example. Iraqis need a free market economy regardless of government if they want to prosper quickly.

Beyond all of that, Due if you were the head of a country running they way you preferred, you would suggests its superiority over other forms of government. The only difference between yourself and Bush is power. Don't you see that our problems have more to do with human nature? That's why we need to limit government not expand it.

Furthermore, you just complain too much about a system that still affords you more freedom and money than almost all of the rest of the world. Hell Due, no form of government works like it should. You would still be bitching if you lived in a socialist country.

Don’t go off saying that Iraq can choose a different form of government and then come back with some bullshit spill about socialism.

[Danosaur]

The 2000 election was messed up, but all of the problems that caused Bushed to win had been in place a long time before what happened did. It was not a failure of democracy, but a failure of a government system responsible for tracking votes. It needs to be fixed. But, Bush is our president, and that's all there is to it. If Gore had won the liberals wouldn't have blinked an eye about the messed up system. We really didn't understand the true count until it was too late anyways, in which case there is still the issue of the Electoral College. So, lets get down to the real talk, you don't like Bush. Hey, I agree, but Gore sucks a big one too.

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by Danosaur
Right now Americans spend close to 50% of their income on taxes. Breakdown the socialist countries and you will find that more money is being spent on government than is being made to support it.

Where are you getting this figure? The highest figure I've seen quoted was 38%, and that was from a conservative anti-tax group's propaganda brochure using some seriously flawed methodology.

Can anyone on these boards seriously say they spent anywhere near 50% of their income on taxes? I would guess the majority of us spend about 20-25% (that's probably generous) of income on federal taxes, including SS. Add in sales tax and state and local taxes and maybe you make it to 30%.

[Duemellon]

What the hell makes you think Iraq wants anything resembling a socialist state.
...
Furthermore, you just complain too much about a system that still affords you more freedom and money than almost all of the rest of the world. Hell Due, no form of government works like it should. You would still be bitching if you lived in a socialist country.
...
Don’t go off saying that Iraq can choose a different form of government and then come back with some bullshit spill about socialism.got enough venom in your response?

But, i'll skip that and respond calmly...

I am pro socialism to a degree. Heh, I'm for liberties and all that, but I recognize the need for limitations to non-governmental entities to ensure they don't get governmental powers without being part of the government itself. Compicated statement, i know.Uh, who ever said that the US was going to impose a democracy that is just like ours?Sorry, I was using the word "LIKE" not "just" or "exactly" like. Heh, we won't impose such a government on them, especially if we wanted them to be under our control/influence.

My initial statement isn't really Pro-Socialism, u'll notice i included other options as well. I'm just saying that we believe our gov't is the bestest. U'kno? We need to step back and really rethink what we are doing.Beyond all of that, Due if you were the head of a country running they way you preferred, you would suggests its superiority over other forms of government.In other words, I agree that's part of our blindness, but just b/c we run ourselves that way doesn't mean we have to beleive it's AWESOME... u'kno? Being knowledgable and truly free is being able to think beyond ourselves. Furthermore, you just complain too much about a system that still affords you more freedom and money than almost all of the rest of the world.Ok, so these freedoms that I have are so great that I should just shut up and fall in line, accepting their faults and crimes as if they were still done by the 'greatest country in existance'?

So I have the freedom, as implied by your statement, to stfu and enjoy my "freedom to express dissent", if I wanted to... but I dont want to... because doing so is disrespectful to the fact that I could. HUH? nevermind that horse has been beat late into the evening, but it's been dead since sunup.

[monkey neck]

Originally posted by Duemellon
hell, i'd love buttermilk if I only drank castor oil my whole life.

That's pretty good. I finally got a kick out of one of your analogies. This is a really good subject of conversation, Due, and I feel you have done a good job with this one...so don't screw it up;) . Oh, I forgot, you hate smilies....sorry.

Democracy is not the shiznit. (ask Yosh, he'll let u kno)

Wrong. It IS the shiznit. It's what hundreds of thousands of Americans have died to protect, and I'd be willing to be one of them. I'm not sure what Yosh and some others have against the "system", but it's not as bad as you think. Really. Look around you...as Danosaur said, even if you don't have much, you have much more here than what you would have most anywhere else in the world. Be thankful.

but we are making it a point for them to develop a country based on non-religious laws. Please understand, this means we want them to base their laws on OUR moral standards and interpretations of murder, thievery, aldultry, etc, and NOT theirs.

We're making it clear that we're not messing with their religious beliefs. We're just making sure a theocracy doesn't develop. Our moral standards fundamentally are identical to the moral standards of all countries: Don't kill, steal, rape, etc. These are not solely American ideals. But I think I get your point...I'm probably generalizing.

Plain and simple, the main purpose of this war was to protect the U.S. of A. and our allies. In order to follow through, a democracy must be installed, nurtured, and protected in Iraq. It is truly in our best interest to aid a government in Iraq that we can trust, and that type of government would indeed be a democracy. It's worked fairly well for us. Furthermore, I agree with Danosaur that the cost of a socialist society would be too much to bear in Iraq's current state.

And Dudeman, I love you, bro, but I think you're too dam intelligent for the rest of us hacks.;)

[Duemellon]

Due, and I feel you have done a good job with this one...so don't screw it uphmm... so far u haven't jumped on me or started getting "emotional". It COULD be that you don't wholeheartedly disagree with my stance? ah, nevermind, i'm trying my best to mess this one up.

After all, how will you make it to the party otherwise?but it's not as bad as you think.It is as bad as I think. But what my experiences are and yours are differ. Therefore, I can say it' snot as good as YOU think. Hey, if I really thought it was bad I'd be out sniping people, burning down buildings, and staging coups.Don't kill, steal, rape, etc. These are not solely American ideals. But I think I get your point...I'm probably generalizing.ugh, now i';m going back to THAT thead. I dont EVEN want this to turn into THAT discussion again...Plain and simple, the main purpose of this war was to protect the U.S. of A. and our allies. In order to follow through, a democracy must be installed, nurtured, and protected in Iraq. It is truly in our best interest to aid a government in Iraq that we can trust, and that type of government would indeed be a democracy. It's worked fairly well for us. Furthermore, I agree with Danosaur that the cost of a socialist society would be too much to bear in Iraq's current state. What about the cost of dividing the nation into several smaller states and subjegating themselves to other states? or becoming a pure communist society? I suggested the others as well, I wasn't really trying to promote socialism, just the idea that MAYBE our government isn't the bestest.

But all the same, u'r paragraph is a logical course of action for a country who just dethroned another: Create a government sympathetic to yours.

I'm just not sure that the way we can "ensure" it's a government we can trust is to make it a democracy.

Okay... now here's the BIG thing I was thinking through all this...

[DudeMan]

Oh and by the way, Due, you are forgetting the name of Saddam's political party -- the Baathist Socialist Party. Iraq is indeed already a socialist paradise, courtesy of the kind and benevolent leader Mr. Hussein. And now those big meanies in the coalition are over there preparing Iraq for capitalism, democracy and freedom.

[Duemellon]

Take these aspects from those social designs:

Democracy:
The ability for the public at large to determine a major aspect of the governing body either by representative selection or direct decisions over legislation.

Capitalism:
The majority of of services, goods, and industry, is privately owned. They are ran for profit outside of the government's leadership.

Feudalism:
The establishment of vassel entities. Countries, states, and nations, who are indebted to the centralized power. These vassel entities are considered independent societies but are greatly influeced by the suggestions and power of the central power.

yeah, I know, someone's gonna jump in and start saying "democracy is more than that!" but that's not what i'm TRYIGN to focus on. What I wrote is what aspect I'm talking about. If you have a better phrase for what I'm trying to get to, plz share.

Also, the opportunity for the benevolent empire is here.

The benevolent empire takes advantage of being the most powerful to push it's on agenda in the name of eliminating chaos, bringing justice and equality, and for the betterment of the area.

Sure, those who were assimilated/conquered/dethroned may have deserved it, needed it, or may be better for it, but the benevolent empire consolidation of power looks extremely similar to an empire who is invading to expand it's power. (very few times has some leadership said "we are invading to rule the world, which is already in good shape, and doesn't need us to.")

and, when that benevolent empire turns over into another society, it can be revered as a high point, or as a dark period, depending on who and how it was overthrown.

Anyway...
The point was to say that we are destroying governments in the name of bringing order to chaos, self-preservation, and installing vassel states. How is this different from the great Roman expansions? English & Japanese wars of unification? or expansion over the Native Americans?

It's still an attack against sovereign nations, removing their leaders, and expanding our influence.

[monkey neck]

Originally posted by Duemellon
It COULD be that you don't wholeheartedly disagree with my stance? After all, how will you make it to the party otherwise?

It COULD be. And it is. You're right, I don't wholeheartedly disagree. And what is this confounded "Party" you speak of?

A lot of government models are good in theory, but with the macroscopic scale in which they operate, there's no way to have a perfectly rigid one. They're all going to lean one way or another.

It's still an attack against sovereign nations, removing their leaders, and expanding our influence.

Sure is. Again, stated in one (hyphenated) word, self-preservation.

It is as bad as I think. But what my experiences are and yours are differ. Therefore, I can say it' snot as good as YOU think. Hey, if I really thought it was bad I'd be out sniping people, burning down buildings, and staging coups.

So, I'm confused. Do you think it's bad or not...

Create a government sympathetic to yours.

Yep. Self-preservation.

I'm just not sure that the way we can "ensure" it's a government we can trust is to make it a democracy.

You are right, it won't be a sure thing by any means, but it makes it a little more likely.

[Danosaur]

-Where are you getting this figure?

The statistic comes from Harry Browne's book, why government doesn't work.

-Can anyone on these boards seriously say they spent anywhere near 50% of their income on taxes?

No, but there are many other taxes we pay besides income. Where are you getting this figure?

[Danosaur]

Attachment too big, will try agian. I have an attachment with the 47%

[Danosaur]

here we go, I hope.

[RichmondVA]

Does he say what constitutes "US Income" and "taxes?"

I suspect that he is including corporate taxes into the tax side.

[Danosaur]

What, corporate taxes don't count? Money that corporations put down in taxes only help them influence our lawmakers that much more. The big wigs in a corporation are going to get their cut no matter what. The money that corporations spend on taxes take up jobs, and keep corporations from being subjected to a real free market. Because of the relationship between Big Buisness and Government we spend billions keeping companies a float that should just go away. Look at tobacco money; much of that money is being filtered back to the tobacco industry in the way of grants and tobacco farming subsidies. Government gets what it wants, Big Buisness gets what it wants, and nothings going to change because Big Buisness is the Governments money crop. Keep government and business separated.

[Duemellon]

Okay, this thread was to highlight the fact that we are converting the unwilling to democracies. Yeah, so far the unwilling has been dictatorships, but still, can't you see we're doing that? We've taken upon ourselves to bring the world to order under our unilateral (or slightly multilateral) guidance?

Wha? U don't remember the "party"? You were invited at one point, but b/c u never really put me on ignore, you are off the list again.Sure is. Again, stated in one (hyphenated) word, self-preservation. Self preservation is one thing, preventing yourself from being wounded is another. And destroying your enemies before they can even be your enemies is yet another.So, I'm confused. Do you think it's bad or not... I am saying it is relative. I respect your belief that you think it's "good" and you should respect my belief that it is "bad". My experiences and desires don't seem to match with the direction this society is going and has been, so it seems this is a bad situation for me. THEREFORE because I think I have the whole "what life is about" thing down, I think it really IS bad for everyone else, they just don't realize it. I'm sure you have some similar belief.

All the same... what I said at the end of that quote was that I'm not feeling desperate. I'm not feeling so angry I could blow up the capital. I'm not so bitter that I dispise the fact I was born in the US. I do believe things are bad.

[RichmondVA]

I'm not arguing that corporate taxes don't count as taxes. It's just that they are paid by corporations, not people. It's obvious that our tax burden has increased drastically over the years no matter how you slice it, to such a degree that you have to wonder if this was what they envisioned when they first started collecting federal tax.

I took your statement "Americans spend nearly 50% of their income on taxes" to mean PEOPLE, not corporations. I think few, if any American people spend 50% of their income on taxes and yes I include state, property, sales, local, and federal if it is personally incurred. I just wanted to know where that figure came from-- that's all.

If you want to take the broader view and say that corporate taxes are paid by individual Americans because it raises prices and takes away jobs I can dig that.

But then you have to make sure corporate income is included as well. If Americans are carrying the burden of corporate tax, then we must be getting the benefit of corporate income.

Only, I don't think that there are US Census statistics for corporate income. So either Browne extrapolated some figures, or else he is taking total taxes (corporate and personal) but only dividing by personal income.

[slow-dog]

Originally posted by RichmondVA


If you want to take the broader view and say that corporate taxes are paid by individual Americans because it raises prices and takes away jobs I can dig that.

But then you have to make sure corporate income is included as well. If Americans are carrying the burden of corporate tax, then we must be getting the benefit of corporate income.

Only, I don't think that there are US Census statistics for corporate income. So either Browne extrapolated some figures, or else he is taking total taxes (corporate and personal) but only dividing by personal income.


GDP is a measure of national income, and would include corporate income. so I think you'd just take GDP and divide by all tax revenues as a start.

[DudeMan]

Richmond/Dan, I think you guys need to relax a little from arguing over whose numbers are the most accurate and whether to include surcharges on wheatgerm imported from Ivory Coast, but if you're interested, this (http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday.html) is probably as good of a measure of tax burden as any.

Whether or not you agree with their premise that we're over-taxed, the good thing about this is they use the same methodology year after year, which gives a relative sense of how our tax burden changes over time.

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by slow-dog

GDP is a measure of national income, and would include corporate income. so I think you'd just take GDP and divide by all tax revenues as a start.

Yeah, I was thinking that, too. But I can't believe you'd get 50% if you did it that way. I have no problems with Dudeman's 30% figure. I'm not so anal that I'm gonna argue a 5% difference one way or the other but you gotta admit 50% is pretty shocking.

As for Iraq, I think you have to have some sort of transitional/rump government to pick up the war pieces and to write a constitution and set up the permanent government. And that transitional government should be democratically elected. I think whatever economic/political system is eventually enacted, it should represent the will of the people. But how do you know what the will of the people is unless they vote?

I'd actually be pretty impressed if we "forced" Democracy on Iraq. Because the typical US move is to simply replace one despot with another despot more favorable to us.

[Danosaur]

Cool, thank you. Sorry for getting all up on your case Richmond. Anywho, your right we don't pay that much personally, likewise it is note worthy that so much is paid out in total taxes. Should government get so much? How much money do we have to give the government before we become socialist? All we need is government healthcare and we are there aren't we?

Due, you should question your society and be critical. I view being so a responsibility of good citizenship. But you also need to give this country some credit. Most of us live pretty well. That by no means suggest we should stop fighting for freedom, fair treatment, the end to our drug war, and the end to high poverty rates. But we are a capitalist, pseudo free market, pseudo democracy/republic country. Deal. You have the freedom to move to a socialist country, it's within your powers, and thanks to our pseudo free market, prices are cheaper than ever.

[slow-dog]

Originally posted by RichmondVA


Yeah, I was thinking that, too. But I can't believe you'd get 50% if you did it that way. I have no problems with Dudeman's 30% figure. I'm not so anal that I'm gonna argue a 5% difference one way or the other but you gotta admit 50% is pretty shocking.

I thought this was interesting, so I did a little digging.


GDP (2001) $10,062.2 Billion

Federal Gross Tax Collections including (personal income, corporate income, estate, gift, employment, and excise)
(2001) $2,092.57 Billion

so that's 20%

It's seems pretty unlikely that you'd be able to eke out 30% of other government sources, but this is a back of the envelope calculation, so maybe I'm overlooking something. I think 30% is probably a reasonable number for discussions sake, and of course I think that's egregiously high. I would think that people who favored a more expansive role for the state could look at that too and say, 'How can we spend 30 cents of every dollar and still not have universal health care?"

But this has nothing to do with Duemellon's thread. So I will propose an option: Why don't they have a weekly Iraqi lottery and that person gets to be monarch for the week?

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by slow-dog
But this has nothing to do with Duemellon's thread. So I will propose an option: Why don't they have a weekly Iraqi lottery and that person gets to be monarch for the week?
Good point, SD, Duemellon tends to be a rather severe task-master when it comes to people veering off-topic on one of his threads, so we'd better pull it back before we get a tongue-lashing.

Your idea is a pretty good one and would do Andy Warhol proud. If those crazy Europeans can have a rotating leader of europe every 6 months, why not have a new monarch every week in Iraq?

[RichmondVA]

Yeah, I know everyone has probably read this already, but it's still funny as crap. So just in case:

New Fox Reality Show (http://www.theonion.com/onion3915/new_fox_reality_show.html)

[Duemellon]

Good point, SD, Duemellon tends to be a rather severe task-master when it comes to people veering off-topic on one of his threads, so we'd better pull it back before we get a tongue-lashing. How cute are you? I might WANT to give you a tongue lashing...

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by monkey neck
Seems like it worked, doesn't it?

ha!

[solomon]

Just give me a Bill of Rights and an institution with the power to defend it and you can create whatever gov't you want. At the end of the day, it's the Bill of Rights that really matters to me.

Really? To me, the "american experiment" has been a failure. By experiment, I mean, testing to see if limited government can actually stay limited. The government is absolutely not bound by the constitution or the bill of rights anymore. And when you look at it, it's easy to see why. How can a document consistently bind a body, when the thing interpreting and applying the document IS the bound body? It ends up, over time, making more and more decisions in its own favor, granting itself more power, since it has total control over the judicial system. It's only a natural evolution. Governments obey a "bill of rights" as long as it's handy.

Solomon

[solomon]

Socialism isn't bad.

How do you figure? Socialism always always leads to resource misallocation and waste.

You can't have capitalism without a whole heap'uv democracy.

Why? I don't see them as being related at all. All you need for capitalism to flourish is the defense of property rights, and this can occur in many ways. Democracy actually leads to the steady erosion of property rights.

Solomon

[solomon]

Wrong. It IS the shiznit. It's what hundreds of thousands of Americans have died to protect, and I'd be willing to be one of them.

Well, it's not the shiznit. Many times, men died not to protect democracy, but to enforce it. Also, if 100,000 people died for the sake of 2+2=5, it doesn't mean they weren't wrong. But I do always admire courage and loyalty.

I'm not sure what Yosh and some others have against the "system", but it's not as bad as you think. Really. Look around you...as Danosaur said, even if you don't have much, you have much more here than what you would have most anywhere else in the world. Be thankful.

All that we have can be attributed to the division of labor, and free trade. It really has nothing to do with democracy. The same thing could be done in a benevolent monarchy with a laissez faire trade policy, and maybe even faster. But it's true, a life on the streets of the west is comfortable compared to life in the rest of the world.

And phrases like "be thankful" put the discussion in the wrong context I think. Being thankful has nothing to do with it. It's not that I'm NOT thankful. Being thankful isn't a reason to be complacent when you see that things could be much better. Why not strive for the best?

Solomon

[solomon]

I think that the model I would look at for Iraq is something along the lines of the Swiss decentralized canton model.

That would be a great model, but fat chance. The thing that's great about the swiss system is that it allows them to segregate themselves the way they want, instead of the forced integration you see in the west and the US, which in my opinion leads to much greater ethnic tension.

I'm in the middle of an interesting book by Fareed Zacharia, whose central premise is that at least in the short term, democracy may be over-rated.

If you like that, you might want to look at Hans Hermann-Hoppe's work.

Solomon

[Duemellon]

How do you figure? Socialism always always leads to resource misallocation and waste. c'mon now, every society has to be run by the most inefficient and unreliable resource known in existance... humans. Of course it falls into misuse and such, same as capitalism, democracy, theocracy, despotism, tribalism.All you need for capitalism to flourish is the defense of property rights, and this can occur in many ways. Democracy actually leads to the steady erosion of property rights.wow, what is the correlation between loss of property rights and democracy? Oh that's right, the HUMAN factor mentioned above.

One aspect of democracy is to give the general populace much more power to chose their own destiny. Free will. This ability to do what you want allows greater ease at developing an industry competitive or unique in a market without governmental interference. If you had a communist society individual businesses wouldn't spring up left and right, there would be no Flander's Lefty Store, and there would be no Orville Reddenbacher. They wouldn't get the freedom to use the resources and their income to create a niche or be competitive because they'd be controlled by the government so tightly.

Don't be fooled, independent companies in a communist government is their "touch of capitalism" such as government regulation of air travel, water, gas & electic, is socialist/communal for us.

[solomon]

c'mon now, every society has to be run by the most inefficient and unreliable resource known in existance... humans. Of course it falls into misuse and such, same as capitalism, democracy, theocracy, despotism, tribalism.

I don't think I understand. What falls into misuse? Humans? That idea seems to me to mean that humans in themselves are the means to some goal. I don't think so. Humans are ends in themselves. I don't see what you mean by saying that capitalism (and the others) is the misuse of humans. Why are humans an inefficient resource?

wow, what is the correlation between loss of property rights and democracy? Oh that's right, the HUMAN factor mentioned above.

The correlation is the incentives and structure, the tragedy-of-the-commons in government that is created by democracy. Again, I don't see what you mean by the "HUMAN factor."

One aspect of democracy is to give the general populace much more power to chose their own destiny. Free will. This ability to do what you want allows greater ease at developing an industry competitive or unique in a market without governmental interference.

What I'm saying is that this necessary freedom can be found in monarchy also, depending on the monarch, or in anarchy. Not just democracy.

Solomon

[Duemellon]

What falls into misuse? Humans? If every human involved in participating in a social model acted honorably, according to the model, benevolently, and without error, that social model is perfect.

yeah, some models may fall out, but even a despotism, if ran by a righteous and just person, would be heaven in comparison to a democracy involving someone with the slightest fault.

Take any model, add a human, and u have a model with faults. So your claim that "socialism always leads to misuse and waste" falls into the "human run it" category. Same as the misuse and waste going on here.The correlation is the incentives and structure, the tragedy-of-the-commons in government that is created by democracy. Again, I don't see what you mean by the "HUMAN factor." If the social participants behaved in a benevolent and earnest manner loss of property rights wouldn't happen. Or, at least, it wouldn't happen in such a way that would cause anyone to be upset.What I'm saying is that this necessary freedom can be found in monarchy also, depending on the monarch, or in anarchy. Not just democracy. Yes and no. We do not have a modern monarchy which is a true monarchy that exists with a capitalist society beneath them. In theory, your idea would work IF the monarchy doesn't infringe on the private citizen's rights in a free market. But it's a monarchy, ie: Dictatorship/Despot/Tyrant. Yeah, they have their subtle differences, but in a true monarchy whatever the ruling class says, they get. The trappings of power in any aristocratic structure will catch them too.

that "human" part again.

[solomon]

Hi

If every human involved in participating in a social model acted honorably, according to the model, benevolently, and without error, that social model is perfect.

No, see that's exactly what I'm trying to say. In socialism, it doesn't matter how anyone acts. They can all act like complete saints, and even WANT socialism, but it is NOT economically possible. It always will break down, regardless of anyone's, or everyone's, intentions. Without prices you cannot allocate resources efficiently, even if you WANT TO. There is no cost accounting. Even if you KNOW what you want to do, it isn't possible to discover the least-cost method of doing it.

So your claim that "socialism always leads to misuse and waste" falls into the "human run it" category.

No, like I said, it falls into the "lack of production signals" category.

In theory, your idea would work IF the monarchy doesn't infringe on the private citizen's rights in a free market.

That's true, but what I meant was that even in the historical monarchies of western europe, there were actually stronger property rights in many cases. It just didn't appear that way because there was THE KING and his cronies, and then everyone else, and so there was an easier target and greater strife between state and subjects. Today, governments have pulled the wool over everyone's eyes with notions of "self-government", "the people are the government" kind of stuff that makes the state less of a target, even though it's actually much more intrusive.

Sol

[Duemellon]

okay, please define the level of socialism you're referring to and I'll base my variance on that. I can't possibly see how socialism inheirently leads to corruption and waste even if everyone involved were saints.

Socialism works, we have examples today to look at. How much of a socialism did you want to see?

Again, we run into "property rights" things...

When there were monarchs the theory is that the kings didn't care what you did with their land as long as you pledged you land and your services to their benefit. So there, you can keep it and do with it as you please, until they decide you can't.

Yeah, monarchs, aristocrats, and other "give me" ruling situations are like that. The people have the freedom to be individuals until they do something you don't want them to. It allows for the ability to micromanage on demand, while leaving the daily details to interpretation with the constant threat of imperial power backing up decisions of the society.

[Danosaur]

Socialism works, yeah, until all your resources are spent. The socialist countries of today have ever growing outstanding dept. In order to have a big government you have to have big money. When your government is so big that more people work for the government or are on government welfare than there are people working to support the system, your country will eventually go belly up. Plus, how can you have fair government when the majority of your countrymen and women have a monetary connection with the proliferation of government? Do you really want a government controlling that much of your life? What happens when a GWB becomes the leader? Socialism may not purport to have anything to do with religion, but governments have never been successful at stopping religion and its influences.

[Duemellon]

In Hypothetical land, which is where all of these social models live, Socialism is a self sustaining, just, and equal, system. That simple.

Resources aren't overextended, if the administrators are just, fair, wise, and stuff. The government can grow to be completely invasive into an individual's life, but the government is benevolent, so why would anyone be upset?

See, that's what I meant. You have to place these "perfect saints" into the positions for any of these societies to be 'wonderful'. As I stated before when referring to ANY and ALL social structures: "If every human involved in participating in a social model acted honorably, according to the model, benevolently, and without error, that social model is perfect." And when Sol said:How do you figure? Socialism always always leads to resource misallocation and waste. He is definitely alluding to the results caused by human ineptitude and/or greed. After all, Iraq was a democracy on paper, but they were corrupted by the same human failings. There are many other faux-Democracies out there, riddled with the same trappings.

I'm just saying that the ONLY thing that makes a society great is the degree to which the participants remain just, fair, equitable, and loyal, to the society.

Any time the participants run amok, the society goes to the crapper. (Participants include administration, civilrey, external participants, etc etc).

But, back to the topic in this here thread...
I heard today they were toying with a non-Presidential model of council lead system. Interesting deviation from the 3-party system at hand. We'll see where this goes...

[Danosaur]

You’re still missing the point Due. You said socialism works, and I say so does my piece of shit old car, but it won't for long. Yes you must factor in the human aspect when considering a government, but in socialism you will lose regardless, it's not about humans it's about simple economics. When a government lives beyond its means it will eventually fall. Socialism is not sustainable. You said that socialism would work if only humans did their correct part. Even if socialism could work if only humans did their correct part it’s still a useless government structure for the real world. Socialism is a white elephant.

[Duemellon]

When a government lives beyond its means it will eventually fall. Socialism is not sustainable. You said that socialism would work if only humans did their correct part.Can't argue with you on THAT point.
not because you're right, but because I obviously can't convince you. So, therefore, I cannot argue with you on that point.

[GWB]

Originally posted by Candyass
democracy didn't work here in 2000 (we all know Gore won...at least in popular vote, don't mention Florida).

Fine, we won't mention the electoral college either.:p

[Danosaur]

Due, it's not about convincing. It's about trying to unravel the facts. The fact is that governments cost money, and if your government is too big, your citizens will not be able to sustain it. The other issue is that socialism has the risk of turning into a dictatorship. Many times in history a socialist political figure is welcomed as the leader of a country only to become its worst nightmare. Look at early Soviet Union life. There were some pretty cool programs in place in the late 1910's. A woman could decide to not be with her husband anymore and if she found a new lover the husband might end up on the couch. Or if you had children you didn't have to take care of them, the state would take care of them for you. Late 1910's Soviet Union was a pretty liberating place for a woman. But all of that fell apart. And when we were fighting Hitler, our ally Stalin was killing off his own people by the millions. His lowest estimated death toll is 25 million, that's the lowest! It’s believed to be much closer to 50 million! You cannot allow government to have that much power. A small homogenous country like Sweden might be able to keep it up, but even Sweden has been cutting corners to try and deal with its debt. On top of that Sweden actually participates in the free market.

[Duemellon]

The other issue is that socialism has the risk of turning into a dictatorship.If the wrong people are invovled. Again, you continue to steer this back to the idea that "if someone amoral, dishonest, and/or greedy takes control it'll be bad." Same as every other social design. If the party that won our election, through cheating & lying, was the Evil party (an independent running under Rush Limbaugh & Michael Moore's love child) then we'd all be fu|<ed, wouldn't we?


in any social structure there is a risk of some group or individual consolidating power and becoming a dictator, or the greatest power of influence on the society. We, as a world, need to find the structure which completely eliminates any possibility of an entity from gaining ultimate control of the society. We (the world) don't have that structure yet.


but, back to the idea that the cost of a government-focused society is the least cost-efficient and will lead to the eventual bankruptcy of the society...

So, you feel that democracy/w capitalism is the answer to this? That in it's design, even with the flawed humans involved, it is a self-perpetuating model?

Our society is becoming less government-focused and more corporation focused. Our society is finding ways to bring companies in over any concerns for individual welfare and even governmental perpetuation.

How many companies have moved into a new city when offered expensive city-wallet-draining tax cuts and incentives, only to leave when another city offers a better deal 1/2way through?

How many times have companies held society hostage with threats to move, or close down, to get financial incentives?

How many times have cities, which didn't comply, been left for dead (see: Cincinnati vs. Downtown Corp Flight of the 80''s-90's).

We are feeding these privately-owned corporations money better used for social improvements in the chase for financial security and these companies KNOW they have us over a barrel and make bizarre requests like "build me a stadium and I'll stay" or "Kick out the residents in Winton/OTR/insert other low-income place so I can increase my capacity" and other tactics.

Human flaws are the cause of social corruption and it's demise, it has never been the social design. In our pursuit of the perfect society (the one that will be self-perpetuating even with human-flaws at the helm) we will see our social structures collapse, be reinvented (slowly and quickly).

[Danosaur]

Part 1
First off, we have been vastly expanding the powers of government over the last 70's years, but even with those expanded powers a Hitler or Stalin would not last in our government structure. Nixon couldn't even get away with a little wire taping and spying, and Clinton almost got ousted for a blowjob.

Part 2
I am glad that you asked about business. Now there is a place were a little communist spirit goes a long way. Smart businesses have learned that it is in fact much cheaper in the long run to stay in the same place, work on low turnover, and give your bottom line workers as much responsibility and freedom as possible. Smart businesses are learning that if you break down bureaucracy, treat people with respect and dignity, your quality and efficiency goes way up. Unlike Gov't, business has the monetary incentive to improve. If more individuals like yourself spent your time trying to revolutionize business practices instead of governments we could actually make a difference. We must limit government to basic needs and work the businesses and non-for-profits in order to improve society. When we use government to force society to change we create many enemies who in turn use government to limit us (i.e. current administration).

[Duemellon]

If more individuals like yourself spent your time trying to revolutionize business practices instead of governments we could actually make a difference.I'm not sure if you're recognizing the fact that I've been talking about society, which our government helps shape, but is still only a component of...

meaning, govn't is within our society, not the entirety.

I've been talking about capitalism & republic democracy, this whole time.

We're facing a different level of control, from these companies, or, better read: entities with immediate influence over local society. Our social structure is allowing them to do much more than I feel comfortable with.

As for what seems to big a big sticking point between me and you regarding socialism vs. democracy & the human factor, I still firmly state that any social design involving benevolent & wise participants will be utopian.

[Danosaur]

Damn't due, you go on and on about this stuff, but you won't admit to the connection between business and government in a liberal system. When you try to cure a social ill with government such as drug abuse or health care, private businesses have to get involved because their products are needed. That puts government and business in cahoots. You also seem to miss that companies are not made up of robots, they are made up of people and they can be solicited just like government. You don't purport structural changes within business; you seem satisfied with vilifying business. Only when government doesn't need big business money to operate will we see bad companies dealt with more justly. Furthermore, your contention that any government structure will be utopian if everyone acted benevolent and kind does jack shit for the two of us living in our human world. We need a government structure that is capable of managing the human element, and that government is a limited one. Your ability to go after business for stepping over the line is hindered by the social democracy that puts government and business in bed together.

[Duemellon]

uh, what you said....

I never said it was the govn't's responsibility to change society, nor did I say they were truly and completely responsible for society. That's why I make the distinction between government and society.

Private companies have to get involved if there are no government faciilities to do the job. This is not talking about "in the way it is now", because we're talking about MODELS of society (at least I have been).You don't purport structural changes within business; you seem satisfied with vilifying business.Well, you're wrong. Unfortunately you're taking my comments to be attacks against government, i'm talking about SOCIETY. In our social structure, corporations simultaneously are effected by society while constructing it. A clear conflict of interest which should be managed by the masses, not by the corporate aristocracy.

What convinces businesses to react to social pressures? Government and customers/consumers. If the business's audience doesn't like what they have to offer or do, they business can change these things:

what they do/offer
or
who they offer/do them to

So, a business doing bad things in the city is told to shape up or ship out. The other place, Barrytown, says they'll take the company, tolerate it's failings, and give it money. Why should the business say "no, we have to fix ourselves to be more socially responsible so we can stay here"?

Now, in a democratic socialist model, the service is provided by a benevolent and wise government, and when it's practices aren't acceptible by the public-at-large the govn't responds.

Yeah, there are some business who are shaping up & being responsible corporate citizens, but you'll notice the bulk of these have such a market-hold, diversity, reach, that they can't "hide", offer something else (because they already offer EVERYTHING), or go somewhere else (they're already everywhere). (Ben & Jerry, and a few others, are exceptions).

However, the FINAL decision to be responsible to the society is an internal decision or based on following govn't regulations.your contention that any government structure will be utopian if everyone acted benevolent and kind does jack shit for the two of us living in our human world.But i'm glad you finally heard me. The declaration that our republic democratic capitalist society is infallible is only true when looking at with "saints" at the helm. Same as theocracies, monarchies, socialist structures, anarchies, whatever. So your contention that socialism is inheirently flawed is based on your belief that unsaintly people will be running it.We need a government structure that is capable of managing the human element, and that government is a limited one. That statement seems to allude to dictatorships, authoritarianisms, and such. I'd rather see a social structure (again, SOCIAL, not just govn't) that harnesses diversity, exploration, and interdependency.

[Danosaur]

So, you have mentioned all these problems you see, but how bout some solutions. What do you propose? How bout a name and face. If your government structure is brand new give it a name, but explain it.

[Duemellon]

So, you have mentioned all these problems you see, but how bout some solutions.I've also said that the next step in evolution for society & govn't is unknown. I'd like to think that I could THINK of it, but I ponder that every day and haven't figured it out.

I believe that representative democracy simlilar to ours is NOT the epitome of social & govn't evolution, I believe that WE believe it's the shiznit because WE live here and things are stable.

Before you start taking a poll of those recent immigrants from world-powers (Germ, Ital, Jap, etc) "why did you come here" just remember..

they're the ones who left.

Be sure to ALSO ask those who stayed, "why did you stay?" I'm sure you'll get people saying "because we're the GREATEST nation ever!" or "I don't care to move because we're stable." U'kno?

What I'm currently toying with, in my own mind, is a democratic socialism where society heavily encourages access to creative tools, healthcare, and allows for private ownership of property and luxury products/services. The amount of government is simultaneously minimal, but widesweeping, because the localized societies are in almost autonomous control of themselves, and that control is dictated directly by the people.

I know there are issues with that model, and I ponder them daily. If the world is dependent on me to find the "answer" before they can get there, this world is in deep shit.

[slow-dog]

Originally posted by Duemellon
What I'm currently toying with, in my own mind, is a democratic socialism

Well, you've only got dozens of case studies available today to look at.

[monkey neck]

GWB and Slow-Dog, you broke the Due-Dan ping pong thread match. Yer out!

[solomon]

okay, please define the level of socialism you're referring to and I'll base my variance on that. I can't possibly see how socialism inheirently leads to corruption and waste even if everyone involved were saints.

I'm talking about no prices/ no private property. It's reasons for failure are PRIMARILY economic. Now I've noticed in your replies to Danosaur that you are assuming they are "wise" in socialism. I'll concede that if the planners were completely benevolent, and could read the minds of each participant and have complete knowledge of all production conditions and factors, then yeah the system works I guess. But this is pure fantasy land. Capitalism doesn't have such extravagant requirements. It works in reality. You need to enforce property rights. That's all you really need. No mind reading. No perfect knowledge. Thats what makes capitalism work in the world, and makes socialism fail in the real world. Behaving like saints isn't enough to make socialism work, planners would also have to be deities basically.

Yeah, monarchs, aristocrats, and other "give me" ruling situations are like that. The people have the freedom to be individuals until they do something you don't want them to. It allows for the ability to micromanage on demand, while leaving the daily details to interpretation with the constant threat of imperial power backing up decisions of the society.

And democracy is not like this? Already, the government is de facto Supra-Owner of all property. Property restrictions and regulations that go far beyond not using it aggressively. Eminent Domain. Etc.

Solomon

[Duemellon]

I'm talking about no prices/ no private property.Ouch, who would want to live THERE!

Yeah, that degree of govn't control is quite exhustive. It could still WORK, but everyone would be working JUST to keep the govn't alive and would have no opportunities for luxury... unless you call deoderant a luxury.Capitalism doesn't have such extravagant requirements. The problem we're seeing with our brand of democratic capitalism is the government decreasing ability to control businesses are creating situations where the businesses are dictating society. I think people should dictate society's direction, but we're seeing the complacent fall prey to privately owned corporation-centric concepts, and those who dissent, or are cynical, are becoming deviants.
Behaving like saints isn't enough to make socialism work, planners would also have to be deities basically.in your definition of how much socialism we're talking about... yes, they'd have to be supra-human to avoid the trappings of being authoritarian and oppressive.And democracy is not like this? Already, the government is de facto Supra-Owner of all property.well, that was a statement specifically responding to the challenge that a monarchy would/could allow the same level of property ownership/rights in a capitalist fashion as a democracy. I was just stating that in such a society property ownership is more perilous because the ruling class could develop brand new, arbitrary laws, that would disenfranchise you. In our society we have an indirect means of effecting such a change in policies.Well, you've only got dozens of case studies available today to look at.Yep. Small and big.GWB and Slow-Dog, you broke the Due-Dan ping pong thread match. Yer out!Monkey! you made GWB remove his post before I saw it! I"m sure it was something inflammatory and such, i wanna read it!

[monkey neck]

Originally posted by Duemellon
Monkey! you made GWB remove his post before I saw it! I"m sure it was something inflammatory and such, i wanna read it!

No I didn't, I was referring to his post closer to the beginning of the Due-Dan game.

Carry on, chaps!

[BigSugar]

Originally posted by Duemellon
If the world is dependent on me to find the "answer" before they can get there, this world is in deep shit.

man, you said a mouthful....no truer words ever (and i do mean ever!) came out of your keyboard! thank god the world has other options.

back to ignore status, but this was too juicy and ripe not to bite into!

[Danosaur]

Due! Most People don't dislike business. Actually I would go as far as to say most people like business. It's a democracy (sort of), and the people have spoken. We like stuff, business allows us to have stuff, and business gives us the means in which to purchase stuff. Government is made up of people, and like I said, people like business, at least over all they do. There are more than enough regulations to hold business accountable, way more than enough. Limit the powers of your Government, make the government less reliant on business, and the government will be less forgiving of illegal business practices. C'mon Due.

[solomon]

It could still WORK, but everyone would be working JUST to keep the govn't alive and would have no opportunities for luxury... unless you call deoderant a luxury.

It wouldn't even work that much. Bare subsistance levels. Thousands would die from starvation most likely. This is in a case of world-socialism though.

The problem we're seeing with our brand of democratic capitalism is the government decreasing ability to control businesses are creating situations where the businesses are dictating society.

Why do governments need to "control" businesses at all? Businesses are controlled by profit/loss and profit/loss is determined by consumers' voluntary spending decisions. Consumers control business.

in your definition of how much socialism we're talking about... yes, they'd have to be supra-human to avoid the trappings of being authoritarian and oppressive.

But any amount of socialims assumes that the price system is not allocating resources correctly, and planner could do it better. They wouldn't have to be super human in order to be "nice enough" it still seems you are ignoring that this isn't enough. They would have to have godlike knowledge of production conditions and telepathic mind reading power to see the values (demand) of everyone involved in order to allocate correctly.

I was just stating that in such a society property ownership is more perilous because the ruling class could develop brand new, arbitrary laws, that would disenfranchise you.

I still don't see how this is different in a democracy. The Big Book of Laws gets bigger and bigger every year with new, arbitrary laws.

Sol

[Duemellon]

I still don't see how this is different in a democracy. The Big Book of Laws gets bigger and bigger every year with new, arbitrary laws.You can't vote a monarchy out... you can vote most administrations out.But any amount of socialims assumes that the price system is not allocating resources correctly, and planner could do it better. They wouldn't have to be super human in order to be "nice enough" it still seems you are ignoring that this isn't enough. They would have to have godlike knowledge of production conditions and telepathic mind reading power to see the values (demand) of everyone involved in order to allocate correctly. Interseting point, but I still don't agree b/c I'm imagining a model where the govn't controls services/products that are deemed must-haves and all other items are privately owned. Private sector is not allowed to compete with govn't sector, and the amount of things which are must-haves are minimal in number.

Please take note, this imaginary model doesn't exist. I'm not going to argue the finer points of a hypothetical & undefined society, because if I truly had the "answer" i'd be out there fighting for it. I know I don't have it yet.Why do governments need to "control" businesses at all? Businesses are controlled by profit/loss and profit/loss is determined by consumers' voluntary spending decisions. Consumers control business. we covered this in another thread, so I'll try to give my schpeal, and leave it be:

1. Consumers can only buy what is offered them.
2. Companies only offer what consumers will buy.
3. Government remains largely uninvolved except for taxes, law enforcement, and social continuity.

now, 3 is going on ALL THE TIME, but 1 & 2 happen concurrently and are interdependent, and the one which effected the other first is hard to distinguish.

You do realize there's this thing called SVCD, a competitor to DVD developed in China. (This SCVD isn't being sold here en masse b/c DVD rules our home-vid market. Is SVCD better? it has it's features, smaller size, easier to make, a platform free for duplication w/o DVD's label) By limiting available brands, Is the rights-owners of DVD effecting what the consumer can buy, therefore, dictating social behavior? Yes. Can the consumer demand SVCD? Most aren't even aware it's an option, and those who do, still find DVD's much more easily accessible.

Of course, you can look at the McD's value meal for the other point, where consumers dictate corporate behavior.

My point being that both happen, and when you have corporations controlling, not only products & services, but information regarding what products & services are possible, you have a conflict of interest in a "free market" model.

As a corporation I'd rather you never hear of my rival corp's products. As a category of providers I would not want you to know about another way you could "get our product" without using me. As an ally, symbiot, tool, or parent, of a provider, I would want to make sure you only know about that provider's goods.

y'see?

I really hope we don't get into THIS here, because this is a whole other discussion.It wouldn't even work that much. Bare subsistance levels. Thousands would die from starvation most likely. This is in a case of world-socialism though. That's why I await the society-fairy to come down and bless our world's leaders with the ability to remove greed, shortsightedness, vendettas, and ineptitude, from our govn'ts. I expect we would need a new model for society to accomplish that.Limit the powers of your Government, make the government less reliant on business, and the government will be less forgiving of illegal business practices.You can't have the govn't competing for consumers with private-sector businesses in our model of society. USPS is starting to suffer & redifine itself, if someoen was to ever indepedently develop a redundant, stable, and easily accessible network system (internet) we'd see catastrophic changes in telecommunications. So, the reason why I went there is...

The govn't must rely on private businesses in our society, or else they become competitors. If they decided to compete, in earnest, the amount of regulations they could slap on businesses would make pairity unreasonably difficult to attain. Even if you say the govn't's consumers were really only itself, they'd end up competiting for resources.

[Danosaur]

Due, you are an unrealistic person who complains and complains about minor inconveniences in your life. When asked for a real solution to your problems you offer some vague hypothetical. I have a suggestion, stop posting replies until you gotta a plausible solution. You are consistently in defense mode, and seem to speak for the sake there of. Just stop it.

"Please take note, this imaginary model doesn't exist. I'm not going to argue the finer points of a hypothetical & undefined society, because if I truly had the "answer" I’d be out there fighting for it. I know I don't have it yet."

B.S. Due, this is an “out” for you on every topic. Go work on your political theory and come back when it's more than just an idealistic statement. You scrutinize other's government models, without ever putting your own out there. You suggest there is something greater out there, for you it's your imaginary perfect government, for others its God, what's the freagin difference?

[postfeminist]

I've been keeping up with this thread without posting much because quite honestly, I don't like the tone of some of the discussions around here when it comes to politics/current events. There's a lot of posturing and nastiness, and it's intimidating.

Danosour said You are consistently in defense mode, and seem to speak for the sake there of. Just stop it.

Which is exactly what i'm talking about. There's nothing wrong with just having a discussion, and Due has every right to throw ideas around. I find it ironic that you're accusing Due of being defensive, when I see Due being attacked more than most other folks on these boards...

So my opinion on the Iraq situation will remain tucked away, quietly, but I just wanted to say that the attitude around here sucks...and since I have free speech, I can say that. :)

[Duemellon]

So, if you think that I should shut-up b/c I don't have a completely-well-thought-out-solution to compare, then you have forgotten how ideas get put into reality.

Due, you are an unrealistic person who complains and complains about minor inconveniences in your life.Minor inconveniences...
I've already noted that you have my blessings to believe this country is "good" and your life is without oppressive limits, that's fine. Not getting the opportunity to buy cheaper SVCDs is an inconveince that for some is a major-pain. (minor for me). Not getting a job is a minor inconveince for others (major for me). Y'see?

it's relative.

as for the accusations of me being a dreamer... u'r right, i am. When I have something that is a plan I fight for it. I know that. Until then, i think, plan, consider options, invent,... that's what I do, I'm a creative.You scrutinize other's government models, without ever putting your own out thereOk, if my scrutiny is a true observation which highlights a flaw, why would you say "show something better or shut up" and not say "hey, interesting point, do you think THIS would work?"

Sol's points about a socialist govn't is helping me define the level of govn't control would be reasonable. I'm sure I'm not going to give up the idea entirely, but b/c of his comments I'm able to rethink them. Do you do that? You should try. Hear the others, consider their points, and if they're right, 10%, 20% or 100%, grow and evolve that stance to a higher level.

[Danosaur]

Political discussion is two-fold. One it is an arena to share information, ideas, and opinions. Two it is an arena in which to challenge one another's information, ideas, and opinions. If I am prodding Due too hard, I am sorry. You did the right thing by saying something, and I am thinking about that right now. Please, don't use it as an excuse not to post. In my defense, I like Due, I appreciate that Due is politically active; I appreciate all those that respond to these boards. If I could I would take everyone out for a drink. That said, I am still going to challenge other's opinions, and sometimes a person needs a little push. I expect the same from others. I got a good laughing at not long ago over something I said about Ayn Rand, and that person was right. We all need it. Please post your opinions and If I or someone else challenges it you get to be the judge of weather or not their challenge speaks a truth or not. Due is not stupid, or ignorant, but Due needs to put something in concrete. I don't know if that helps at all.

[IPrayForSound]

I dunno if anyone's talked about this yet, but I don't feel like reading through 4 pages to find out. Anywho, on the subject of the U.S. replacing centuries of culture with our own brand-name, I give you Iraq's new source of news, as provided by Bush and pals. (http://alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15801)

I particularly like this:
"Grace News Network will be reporting the current secular news, along with aggressive proclamations that will 'change the news' to reflect the Kingdom of God and its purposes," GNN proclaims.

Before anyone attacks this, know that I'm aware that alternet is a hugely liberal news source and that this might not be as bad as it plainly appears.

[Duemellon]

yeah, the information I had was that we were going to give them CNN, CNBC, and other news networks for most of their day, give them 4 hrs of their local news, in an effort to "show them how to have objective, non-goverment driven, news."

When questioned about why Iraqis care about news from a US perspective about US interests, the response was:

Well, consider it a side-effect of the cure. We're showing them how news is done.

Nah, we aren't self-righteous. Nor are we trying to brainwash them. I'm sure I'd resent this even more than I could possibly imagine if I was there.

Hey, commrades, since we dethroned your politikal leaders, we will give you Ivan Tellalie who will speak of the news from the land that liberated you. You are not our subjects, but your news is less important to us, and should be less important to you.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by IPrayForSound

Before anyone attacks this, know that I'm aware that alternet is a hugely liberal news source and that this might not be as bad as it plainly appears.

I looked for the story on more "mainstream" sources and couldn't find it. Hopefully, Grace News is truly only supplying technical support and that's why this isn't really news.

[silvertone32]

Hey all,

you all know who I am i must be brief.

I just got out of Iraq 12 days ago. Believe me the majority of the people are happy that Saddam is gone. I cant believe all the self rightous crap that is spewed here.
There is good and there is bad in this world .... we did good real good by the citizens of Iraq. If you dont believe me go over there and ask them yourselves.

Sorry I am not forming the most coherent of thoughts but I put my money where my mouth is and i was severly wounded in Bagdad around 12 days ago. I am looking forward to comming home after my next surgery and will spent alot of time in cincy while i am convalesing. sorry so crude but the painkillers dull more than pain.

[Duemellon]

Well, get better, get coherent, and chat with you on the board when u'r urself again.

[solomon]

I heard that Al-Jazeera is starting an english version. I would be really interested in seeing that. Sure would offer a different perspective.