Why I am a Democrat

Post Reply New Topic

Just like there are people who pay taxes and recycle their newspapers because it's the Right Thing To Do. If the only reason you pay taxes is that you would be locked-up for tax evasion, I'd just as soon ship you off to Somalia. Same goes if you don't recycle your newspapers unless the garbage service starts passing you by if they see a lot of beer containers in your trash.

It isn't, it won't. Not under the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Unfortunately, when applied to the real world, your theory crumbles. We happen to have a growing population on a finite planet.

Between 1950 and 1980 the U.S. economy was growing at 2.5 percent on average. That means one person's gain did not necessarily imply another person's loss.

ruveyn

I'm not talking about 1950, or 1980, or 1450, or 1480. I'm talking about now, and into the near future.
A species finds itself in favourable circumstances in which its growth can be sustained relatively unchecked, and it procreates, until finally it uses up the ground on which its prosperity was founded, and then it begins to either, a.) die off, or b.) relocate itself, or at least those that survive the decline do, if there is a place to be relocated to.

Right now, the U.S. is essentially stagnating. A bonus from the Obama administration.

For Statists a stagnating economy is idea. They get to ration out the goods and services to the chosen Few.

ruveyn

ruveyn

America needs a radical socialist third party to represent the true left in the american system. It will be a democratic socialism, which strictly adheres to the constitution. Why should the right have the only say about such matters? Clearly they rape and plunder the constitution whenever it is convenient. Wouldn't it be an interesting, though unlikely change in American politics for a socialist party to be identified as the protectors of the constitution! YEs, socialists can be pro gun possibly. It will be harder to demonize the left if they are also radically pro constitution.

I had hoped the Obama administration would usher in a new era of positivity. Instead poor (mostly dark) people are still abducted by police and held prisoner and tortured by private companys in private prisons. The administration will not recognize Palestine as a state. All constitutional rights can be subverted in the name of homeland security. It would be nice to have the option of legally smoking marijuana.

THe democratic party is center right and the republican party is far right. Business has an extreme amount of control over our society now. So do certain religious persuasions. It is scary to ponder the future.

Especially considering the enormous, growing population of the world.

Actually, it wouldn't be unfeasible for us to function with a powerful aristocratic class. In fact, I am not unilaterally against going back to a class-structured society. It worked well for the British for a long time, and I think that our preoccupation with a conceptual realization of "equality" can get to the point of being a bit silly. The problems tend to arise from social class becoming a hereditary and immutable entitlement without any connection with responsibility or obligation. When power comes with strings attached, it becomes less attractive to individuals who would use it selfishly, thereby rendering them harmless.

However, for such a phenomenon to materialize, the charge would have to be led by those who would constitute it. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have actually taken up this cloak readily:

Giving away their wealth doesn't mean giving away their power at all. In fact, by giving their money to charities they happen to support, they are effecting the true realization of their power. Gates and Buffet are essentially building up an aristocratic form of government. By using their wealth to bring about outcomes that they consider to be aesthetically desirable, such as the advancement of cancer research for example, they are entrenching themselves as legitimate sources of authority in our society. The pledge is not entirely without a selfish motive, but the sticking point is that their behavior is leading to a workable system.

I don't consider this to be an altogether bad thing, either. I think that a powerful aristocracy could hedge against some of the inherent pitfalls of democracy, such as the risk of ochlocracy. If the elected government were overrun with dangerous religious fundamentalists, an empowered aristocracy could rein it in and prevent such catastrophic outcomes as a "holy war" or a return to violent persecution against certain minorities I will not presently name.

Just like "liberty," the cause of "equality" is just another false idol. In fact, railing too readily against necessary invasions upon your "liberty," such as taxation, effectively guarantees that the only practical method of enforcing them will be to take your tax dollars by threat and force. If most people dutifully paid their taxes without any such intimidation, though, the authorities would be more likely to look the other way for the remaining minority that, for one reason or another, decided not to pay. The reason this would work would be that, if the authorities were secure in having a certain percentage of the population giving part of their affluence freely and unquestioningly, it would not be propitious for them to risk alienating that goodwill. Therefore, the simplest approach to handling taxation is to teach our offspring from birth that it is a social, not just legal, obligation to pay their taxes fully and on time. The philosophy of, "my neighbor mows his lawn and pays his taxes, so he's okay in my book," really works a lot better than brute methods of enforcement, if we practice it consistently. On the other hand, railing against the few strings we naturally have in our lives virtually guarantees that those strings will be replaced someday with chains.

I do think that I have historical precedent for these notions.

Oh good! That will mean the misery and want will be doled out evenly.

ruveyn

Are you miserable?

No, but many people are. I just happen to be on the sunny side of things.

Socialism is a platinum plated guarantee of mediocrity.

ruveyn

Hm, I think most people are fairly contented in at least a shallow kind of way, though fulfillment is somewhat rare. Perhaps I'm somewhat optimistic, but I think that only a few people are truly unhappy. Sure, you get a sissy here and there who complains self-indulgently, but that's not real misery. They are lucky they have the leisure for self-indulgent pouting. Some people don't have that luxury, and most of the time they are too tired to whine. I think that part of the reason the state is there is to help the last category.

Careful. Some people yearn for mediocrity, and they find anything that is not altogether mediocre and lackluster to be altogether intolerable. Frankly, I think the system we have works pretty well, and I think it will continue serving us well for centuries to come if we don't muck with it too much.

Last edited by WilliamWDelaney on 16 Jan 2012, 7:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I doubt that we will last that long, the way we are going.

ruveyn

Do you find something ominous about improving unemployment figures and steady growth in the stock market?

Our rate of innovation has taken a big hit in the last two decades. We are on our way to Second Rate.

ruveyn

Zuckerman.

iPhone, iPad, 4G...a growing market for solar energy, hybrid automobiles (presently overrated, but it's a technology in its infancy), and a rapidly developing nanotech industry. Lithium-ion batteries...