@Constantine

With the outmost respect: your views about democracy are not only flawed, but principally wrong!

one does not ellect the opposition!!

if you compare forms of government to cooperate companies, please give a reason or conclusion to the obtruse idea!

honestly man.... i am sure you've got something to say, but who is gonna 'get' you if your post doesnt make much sense!

GrouchoMarx,

I am a big fan of your namesake, and my natuarl inclination is to laugh. But of course I realize you are serious so I will answer you.

We do in fact elect an opposition, if only by default. The party with the representatives elected forms the government. The party or parties) with the next number of elected representatives becomes the opposition.

Although we are not asked to elect an opposition we do so by default. There they are nonetheless.

I am aslo aware that governing a nation is not the same as running a corporate company. However one can draw comparisons in terms of efficiency and methods of management.

My point was simple; We have chosen to run our countries by having a group to make decisions and attempting to implement them. We then have another group to oppose them. Does it sound sensible?

I think I prefered you when you made jokes:(

Regards

Constantine

We do not elect an opposition by default. Opposition must exist and is essential requirement to a democracy. (Where on earth is an opposition elected by the general public.....?) Opposition here does not automatically mean that they are an absolute opposition rejecting everything a government proposes, but the represent a choice. A choice of different values and not necessarily opposing ones!
Ideally the opposition is a different choice, not an opposite one.
Thus we do (or ideally should) not have two groups (one the government and one the opposition (like you state)) contradicting each other.

I am sorry to say that your understanding of democracy does seem quite shallow! Do prove me wrong (and I then might even tell you a joke)!

Regards

Let me start by taking exception to this statement. Where on earth is it written that opposition is an essential part of democracy? Certainly the people will have opposing views, but in a democracy the majority views will hold sway.

Now, let me explain how in my country, Australia, the political system works. We have the Westminster system, just like the U.K.

In this system the political parties stand representitives in each electorate. Also, independant representatives may stand for election.

Them people vote for their choice in each electorate. The representative who gets elected in each electorate in now a member of P.arliament. With me so far?

The political party with the most representatives now forms the government. Where no single Political party has more than half of the elected representatives, a coalition of parties or even a coalition of a party with some independants will form the government.

So, in effect we now have a government formed by whatever party can pull together more than half the elected representatives.

The political party who did not form government, but has a substantial number of representatives elected, forms the Opposition. (the Opposition can also be a coalition). We elected all the members of the Opposition. We did not vote for them to BE the opposition. We voted to get them into government, but as their party did not get enough members eelcted, they form the Opposition.

So you see, we did elect the opposition, by default.

And I also understand, that in this context, opposition is not strictly defined as opposing everything the government does. I understand that the opposition may reflect different values and ideas.

However, they still oppose the will of the government often enough. The government may try to pass a bill through parliament and the opposition will often oppose it.

You seem to have taken my statement in the most literal sense, instead of trying to understand the underlying theme. Please try and get my MEANING from what I say. That is after all the essence of communication.

I wish you were Harpo.

Regards

Constantine

I think our problem here are different definitions of "Opposition"
where you take the word too literally.
The opposition means that there is a choice which is essential to democracy, therefore...

anyway, mull it over, i dont have time for a discussion right now. have to go out and drunk. laters

Take care, don't drunk too much.

I used to drunk. But drunking did not agree with me. I gave it away.

When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading.
Henny Youngman (1906 - 1998)

Regards

Constantine

I think IDEAL communisim would be the best but nothing is ideal so nothing will work 100%.

-Steve

i may be wrong, but i believe the middle ground is called Market Socialism.

Both economic forms suck, because neither ensures satisfaction of needs for all who reside in the state. My main issue with communism is that if it is purely just economic communism, it shouldn't interfere with social aspects (aside from career). However, most (if not all) communist states were also very authoritarian, and that caused hell on Earth.
Capitalism is currently the only known way to satisfy humanity. If a human is not capable of owning all things, he cannot be satisfied in our current world.

I think the true "utopian" form of economic regulation is decentralization (I think that's the proper word) --- a state that has no economy. Everyone, of course, would have to trust each other to only take what they need, and that sure ain't gonna happen in this millennium.

Like what? There really isn't any limit on greed here. Look at Bill Gates and the top 1,000 richest people in the world. About 99% of them are from here.
And about 90% of all the money in the USA economy is controlled by about 10% of the people.


Beautifully said.

Just a few examples are: anti trust laws. R.I.C.O. laws(racketeering), laws governing the trade on the stock market to prevent price fixing as well as price fixing in other market areas. Things would be a lot worse with out these laws.

Seafox14

Yes, the evil and greedy Bill Gates!!!!

Who has given away more money than any other person on earth according to that link over the last few years.


None directly to me, however.

Wonder what I have to do to get the JohnWho Foundation on his charitable list?

If greed is an essential part of human nature, then both communism (or socialism) and laissez-faire capitalism must take this into account in a realistic manner. Only the latter seems to do so.
But what muddles everything up is that every economy is an admixture of both groups of theories, both as regards to economic theory as well as to the political theory that effects it. Here, the real world seems to make testing a theoretical model---at least so far---impossible.

Regards,
John

IT is nice for Bill Gates to give away such a large amount of money. But as he is smiling giving away that money, he is also remembering one little tax benefit to donating such high amounts.

Either the government can take 40% of his money every year or he can donate at least 15% and they won't, and I am sure he is aware of this. Why do you think Steve Jobs only receives 1 dollar a year from Apple. He gets all of his money from stock options (less taxes). So I am sure it's for good, but in the back of his head when it comes to tax season I am sure he is really jolly about not having to give the feds anything.

So you know the inner thoughts and the state of Bill Gates's heart?

So I guess you enjoy paying taxes to the Feds....I will tell you what....next year, you can pay for mine.

Of course I am happy paying my taxes... I don't really have choice, either I let the feds take what they want or they take me away.

Here is a little story about greed, or at the very least hypocrisy.

Unfortunately that is true. I would go one step up and say they are stealing from us.

How do you know? The government feels they are right now matter what percent of your income they take, and they feel like you are stealing from THEM if you don't pay! lol Talk about irony.

Not true -

I believe if you donate enough, you can lower your taxes considerably, possibly to zero.

Hence why rich people donate money instead of paying taxes. I bet Bill Gates hasn't paid income taxes in a while, because he donates enough or plenty to charity he doesn't have to. But in all honesty is it fair? Just because you donate 15% of your money to the homeless, the poor, or whatever, does that mean Uncle Sam shouldn't take his piece?

Recently found a good article about socialism:
Is Socialism Against Human Nature? — Common Questions and Answers

I do believe the necessities to live should be provided by the government, health care, limited unemployment, etc... however everything should be consider a luxury. As for food it would go under the necessity however your job you use to pay for luxuries and for taxes (to pay for free health care) would cover your food. Because your idea of a cheap dinner varies between each citizen, and each job. If you have a higher paying job you could afford that steak every night. However, if you had a low paying job you would only be able to afford small meals.

Communism > Capitalism



This is coming from a proud commie.





WOOOWEEE

Well,

if you are living in a successful Communist country,

then good for you.

Well, as long as we recognize that it isn't Bill Gates fault that he can lower his tax rate that way. It's the law.

It is also very probable that more of his money goes toward the "greater good" through his donations than would ever if it were first funnelled through the Government.





Perhaps this is the time to ponder the possibilities of a "flat tax"?

Besides that....even with all of his "deductions" (keep in mind this is HIS money)...he has paid more in taxes than you and your entire family ever will.

Communist = Corruption. Capitalist = More Corruption (I believe now a days)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Is a great start to understand the difference between socialism vs capitalism and communism.

I love the fact that this topic started October 26th, 2006. It gives a clear understanding to the duration of the cold war.

My personal problems with communism:

One person commented that the idea of communism where everyone is equal and working together for a common goal really appeals to him. I must say that idea appeals to me too, but anyone that thinks everyone around them is equal, in my opinion, has not been paying much attention. There are people in our society (specifically U.S.) that have allowed themselves to stagnate. They have no skills, they do not work, and I don't think that they are equal to me. I work hard, but in a communistic society I would only be entitled to the same things that they are. I think that people whom do not work and do sponge off of others, for example many many welfare recipients, are themselves greedy and just looking out for themselves. Thus the idea of communism is destroyed by greed just the same as many say that capitalism is.


I can only put faith in education. Hopefully as more and more people become educated we can solve some of our socio-economic problems. Of course the problem now is not enough of us are educated and many of the ones that are think that they can put forth a common good type of society even though most people in this country seem to be only out for themselves.

Ah well, I could rant all day and still accomplish nothing. These were just some thoughts. It is a twisty windy road we tread.

From my standpoint, both communism and capitalism are full of problems.

Being from a country that adopted communism in the past (China), I have to say that communism is too idealistic and problematic. For those who know little about communism, let me try to give a definition of it. Communism is basically an economic/social theory that all people are to share equal material wealth and social status. All properties are collectively owned by the state and anyone can claim from the state based on individual needs.

Chinese Communist Party (CCP) adopted communism after years of civil war with then heavily corrupted KuoMingTang (former government of Republic of China, don't confuse it with PRC). Mao's aims was to develop People's Republic of China (PRC) at a fast pace under a communist economic system. His two major revolutionary programmes (The Great Leap Forward and The Cultural Revolution) turned out to be fatal mistakes and catastrophic disasters. Millions of Chinese died of starvation and natural disasters during the Great Leap Forward, because people were not as productive as Mao thought. He overestimated the capabilities of the working force and set overly high production targets. As for the Cultural Revolution, it created lots of unnecessary chaos and deaths in China, all because Mao insisted that educators should teach poor people who cannot afford education and forced millions of teachers from the cities into the villages. Mao thought that his goal in bringing wealth to the poor by equal distribution of wealth will work, but evidently, it didn't.

As for the case of Russia, communism did an equal damage to the Russian people. Corruption was serious in Russia after years of communism, and many people suffered from extreme hunger and starvation. Millions of people died as a result.

The problem with Communism is that it assumes that every individual will be willing to work since everyone gets an equal share of the total wealth. But clearly, it isn't true. The reason why China's productivity dropped like a hailstone during Mao's times was because people were too lazy to work. Everyone just sat there and waited for their share of wealth to come to them. Lack on incentives to work practically brought China's development to a stagnant halt. As for Russia, people were forced to work under horrible conditions and most of the wealth was not distributed equally as promised. Bullying of the poor was everywhere and rape and corruption prevailed in every corner. Productivity was equally low in Russia as it was in China.

As for capitalism, I think it created just as many social problems as communism did. Sure, it increased productivity and provided material wealth, but it actually lead to more corruption. With an economic ideology that promotes self-interest and materialism, it exemplified the dark side of human nature. Greed, selfishness, hypocrisy are just some of the products of capitalism.

Some people say democracy and capitalism are in line with one another, but I think they actually conflict. Democracy advocates that every human is equal and should enjoy equal rights. But clearly that's not what we are seeing in capitalist economies. In fact, the income disparity in capitalist countries are getting so great that the lower end of the income group actually experiences a drop in living standards. Money and power corrupts people, and this is exactly the case in the modern world where capitalism is adopted by almost every country except a minority few. So is capitalism necessarily a path to a brighter future? That is a question we should think about.

Those are just human traits, and will come out whatever the environment.

What I mean is, they are exemplified under capitalism.