Reply
Fri 21 Apr, 2006 08:36 am
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
-- Winston Spencer Churchill
It is not the intent of this thread to discuss in what democracy consists. However, it would not be any serious diversion to discuss that topic. The topic i wish to discuss is, however, the future of human societies. Monarcy is functionally dead. Yes, monarchies persist, but are either the governments of small and unimposing societies, or are mere show for societies which are in fact governed by other systems, or--as in the presently prominent example of Nepal--are in their death throes. The same is true of oligarchies, with the possible exception of the gerontocracy of China. The signs of economic change in China suggest that the oligarchy there is increasingly dependent upon bureaucracy and can no longer rule by fiat (which is actually a traditional Chinese response for millenia). The last remaining social injustice of crucial significance to humanity is plutocracy. Plutocracy effectively rules the United States, and has influence (an undue influence, as many, including me, are wont to suggest) in most industrical societies. The last great injustice in human society is economic inequity. Nations which starve or suffer, defenseless, the ravages of disease, do so because they cannot afford the remedies of their disasters. Occasionally this results from the ineffectiveness of government, or the existence of a complete power vacuum in society, such as is the case in Somolia. More and more often, however, it results from "globilization," and the false contention that "capitalism" defeated "communism," and therefore ought to reign supreme.
My proposal is that humanity can only progress socially now by so fettering capitalism as to insure economic equity.
Watching - and loving the title, of course.
I hope there is no Swift revenge, though.
Well, thank you Roger, but please don't eat any babies in this thread.
Setanta
Setanta, I agree with you. I tried to address these issues in two recent posts. To save me repeating them here I'm providing the links:
Transnationalism and migration:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/about72732-20.html
and
The attempt to privatize the public water supplies in South America:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/about62062.html&highlight=transnationals
I believe we are on the cusp of a international social dislocation and radical change.
BBB
This is a cycle that overtakes society periodically. The rich oppress the poor, the poor rebel, etc. We are seeing, in the US and elsewhere, more wealth in fewer hands than ever before. The difference, of course, is that even the "poor" in America are immensely richer than the poor in other countries.
Will they rebel? In what form?
DrewDad
DrewDad, unlike the Doctors Without Borders who are motivated by compassion, we have millionaires and billionaires who are driven by greed.
BBB
We also have many, many middle classed Americans driven bt greed. I bet we even have people in poverty driven by greed. I'll even go so far as saying there are people that are not even living in America driven by greed...
so what?
McG
McGentrix wrote:We also have many, many middle classed Americans driven bt greed. I bet we even have people in poverty driven by greed. I'll even go so far as saying there are people that are not even living in America driven by greed...
so what?
I know you think your conpulsive need for contrarianism is a valuable contribution to A2K, but your version is nothing but a lazy diversion that adds nothing of any value to the discussion.
BBB
Unrestrained capitalism is no better than communism. Government must moderate or things get in a mess. As they are now.
What i find most pathetic about the defenders of capitalism is the cry for "free trade," and the denigration of those who want a "nanny state." Corporate freeloaders get far more from the government than do "welfare queens." How many "welfare queens" could you support with the billions which Halliburton had gotten from the government with sweetheart contracts for which there is, apparently, little or no oversight. Corporate welfare comes in many forms.
As for the concept of "free trade," it's a chimera. There never was and there never will be free trade. There has been trade which had no tariff, but that is not to be equated with "free trade"--governments and private organizations both support business in ways that prevent a level playing field. No nation has ever allowed untrammeled capitalism, without regulation, even if the regulation were no more sophisticated than bribery or fines. There is no reason to accept a contention that individual freedom equates with a right to exploit markets without let or hinderance.
corporate freeloaders do a lot more than welfare queens for the good of the country. They provide jobs and services instead of making poor decisions and wasting their money on beer and cigarettes.
How many people do Haliburton employ? How many people get their health insurance from Haliburton? Now, what is it exactly welfare queens do?
A nanny state will never be successful.
I would rather have a leader that has proven he can make good decisions and be successfull and rich, than a leader that can't or won't hold down a job and blows their welfare check at the OTB.
How about you?
I have not contended that a "nanny state" will be successful--i was pointing out the hypocricy of those who whine about a "nanny state." If Halliburton were not getting literally billions in tax dollars, people would have the money to employ people here at home, and to pay their insurance. Were an incompetent admininstration not wasting billions on inept military adventurism, and funnelling as much taxpayer cash as possible to their cronies, the future of this nation's children and grandchildren need not be in hock to a soaring national debt.
As i have no reason to believe that the Shrub ever earned the money he had, as opposed to just getting it from daddy, or from the savings and loans scams he ran, or the profits from insider information--i find your question as stupid and meaningless as your exposition.
Of course you do, I would be surprised if you said otherwise.
Which of course, offers no rebuttal. But then, you don't come to able2know to debate, you only come to whine and sneer.
Personally, I shall never forget.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace