Would you move to Libya to get a democracy?
1 Like
There are a lot of things close to democracy. Only a few countries are run as a theocracy. I am not saying it canât work. Just that it typically doesnât work as well as other forms of government.
It is a bit like communism. So far the outcomes in the countries that have tried it have been pretty poor. However, that doesnât mean that it will always fail.
What does this mean? Work as well for whom? What does it mean for a government to work well?
In what way has it failed? Its failures are caused by what it is. Communism is always doomed to result in victims and suffering, unless it is 100% voluntary. People are not communistic, so it has to be forced on them(unless itâs on a small scale/100% voluntary/commune-type of thing).
Well I suppose it is subjective that it doesnât work well. With theocracies, someone at the top decides what the holy text or God wants. It often doesnât work out well for the ones who disagree with them.
Some countries are just close to theocracies (see many of the middle east countries). Their law is heavily influenced by religion. IMO, it isnât great to be a woman in those countries. You can go to jail for not wearing a head dress, or get honor killed after being raped in some of them. Again it is subjective, but I wouldnât want to live there.
In capitalism man exploits man, in communism it is the other way around.
I am not convinced this is true. Perhaps on a large scale this is true. On a small scale it seems people end up with a system like communism often. Think of many of the Native American Tribes that basically formed communes. It wasnât forced. I see in your edit you mentioned this.
Now that is an interesting position. My first instinct is to point out why I think your wrong, but I would like to hear why you think this way. Why do you think a monarch or theocracy is better than democracy other than what it can potentially devolve into?
I guess it depends upon oneâs connotation of âexploits.â In capitalism, all dealings must be mutually beneficial or they wonât happen. In communism, a few force communism on the rest.
Iâm short on time and Iâll try to elaborate later but itâs not a matter of democracy potentially devolving into oligarchy but that it always has, including today. Corporations, billionaires, Wall Street, and the media run the government, not the other way around.
1 Like
If anyone puts their religion or god ahead of a constitution or of basic human morals, you are a dipshit.
1 Like
In general with capitalism, it is mutually beneficial, but one party often does much better than the other. You probably are not getting hired unless the employer thinks they can make more from you than they pay you. Many wealthy people are rich because they have skimmed profits off of otherâs labor. Anyone who has made money (including myself) in the stock market is doing this.
Mutually beneficial benefit to the party that isnât winning the deal is often to survive and put food on the table. They take the deal as it is there only option other than indigence.
Youâre probably not looking for a job unless you believe working for that employer will be more profitable than working for yourself. Again: Mutually. Beneficial.
It makes people complain. If people arenât complaining, then government isnât doing a good job.
What about the slave trade?
Working for yourself is not an option for many people.
Many people are somewhat economic slaves under capitalism. They canât stop working, they canât start their own business. Many times these situations come from bad choices, but do happen.
Of course exploitation occurs, which can be dealt with if thereâs the will to end it, but I donât think thereâs something wrong with capitalism inherently. In most cases, the man with the capital and starting and heading the company has characteristics that most men donât, the talent, energy, risk taking, etc.
Iâd add to that, most people are inherently ordinary. And thatâs not a matter of failing to be extraordinary. Besides, a continuum of talent and intelligence is needed for a division of labor.
1 Like
Swap out democracy with capitalism and government with economy, and you have my opinion.
I think it is our best option if we can use regulation to sort out undesirable outcomes. This is what is done in most first world economies including the US. We can argue about how much regulation we want, and at what point more regulation causes more issues than it solves, but I think capitalism with regulation is the best way.
1 Like
I donât actually disagree with you as much as one would think to a point.
Just to clarify we are a constitutional republic, not a strait democracy, but I get where your coming from. Especially now that we are in a constitutional crisis where people are openly subverting the constitution because they donât like the duly elected leader and are approaching his removal with an âAny means necessaryâ ideology.
And ideally a âbenevolent monarchâ is the best possible conceivable government, save for the problem of benevolence and the fact that those who have that trait are extremely few if any. But sure elaborate when you have time. I wanna see what you mean fleshed out a bit.
1 Like
Absolutely. Both buyer and seller must believe the exchange is beneficial for it to occur. If youâre talking about the enslavement of people, thatâs not capitalism(but the growth of capitalism has brought it to low levels)âŠunless, I suppose, the slave agrees to his enslavement(in which case, I would expect terms the slave views as favorable to his prior condition).
Itâs not? Capitalism does not have a rule against considering other people property.
The main point of democracy, republicanism, and capitalism is to protect against human frailty. Giving everybody a certain amount of legislative and capitol power provides a space, especially when the three are combined, to reel in people with too much power.
Ironically, it has been the instrests of those trying to reel in certain entities without doing the same to the counter to those entities that have provided for most of the imbalance we see today.
How can competing ideologies actually compete when a few people can donate a few hundred to say the Susan B. Anthony Center but then Jeff Bezos can donate 100 mil. to planned parenthood?