Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Where Should the Line Be Drawn?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Where Should the Line Be Drawn? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Where Should the Line Be Drawn? - 10/14/2008 1:51:02 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline 		What is needed Kinkbound is a system which truly provides opportunity for all - but not a system which provides the same opportunity for all.

We have been caught up with the idea of everyone being entitled to equal opportunity, but this is not what is required since it means the same opportunity for all, and since each is inherently different this amounts to shoving square pegs into round holes in many cases but in more cases simply discarding the square pegs. When it is noticed that square pegs are being discarded, the answer under "equal" systems is to make the round holes a little more square so that more square pegs will fit, even if round pegs are thereby disadvantaged. Our problem as socio-economic systems is that we have allowed, indeed encouraged, the eradication of most square holes

What is rather needed is equitable opportunity, by which I mean the same level of opportunity to develop oneself and succeed, whatever one's inherent inclinations. We need a system which recognises from the off that some pegs are round and some pegs are square and that there is no difference in value between the two, just a difference in natural inclination. Each type of peg needs its own developmental path and equitable opportunity for that development.

But this is not enough; one then needs to ensure that the socio-economic system works to the strengths of all pegs, so that not only does the society as a whole become stronger but each peg has equitable opportunity to realise itself. This requires a market economy but one whose basis is not the exploitation of some pegs by other pegs but the understanding that all pegs are vital to the whole. Going back to the OP, this brings about a third position between the two extremes, where the state on the one hand takes care to ensure all pegs are enabled but then leaves all pegs to fulfil their own natural inclinations, intervening only where necessary for the continuing health of the society.

You also noted that this might require protectionism. This is true to some extent but it need not be so. My position is that the socio-economic situation of any society is for that society to decide - it is not for some in that society to decide, still less for others not in that society to decide. This derives from the position that there is a social element to any economy - and this impacts as much when square pegs are employed or unemployed, for good or bad respectively.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to corysub)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Where Should the Line Be Drawn? - 10/14/2008 2:24:00 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

kinkbound
If your were empowered to engineer your ideal government, where would you begin? Would you attempt to be fair to all, or would you favor either capital or labor? Can prejudice and greed even be regulated, and if so, should they be?

I think the question contains an underlying error in that it believes that such a thing as an ideal government is possible.

If you emphasise  "your ideal gov." then many have already tried that including Hitler, Pol Pot.
Note soft option do gooders ( eg Michael Foot for the Brits) rarely get elected into power and never try to take it by devious means.
As to the unintended consequences of "do goodery based on idealism" consider the transfer of resources from poor people in society to even poorer people. What frequently happens is those that received the largesse in the long term remain poor and those that were made to provide that help are made poorer.

So the the answer is .....
the question is unanswerable because if you believe that your policies, whatever they are,  will produce idealistic results then you are wrong.

I agree that there has been a long term trend to more social justice but that frequently rested on the use threat of force or the indolent ruling class realising that a skilled working/technical class was necessary and could be used to sustain privilege.

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Where Should the Line Be Drawn? - 10/14/2008 4:14:20 AM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kinkbound

Is a big, intrusive, all-inclusive, nanny government the ideal?

NO, that is the nightmare we are all living

On the opposite end of the spectrum, can Man, with its inherent prejudice and greed, be trusted to totally self-regulate?

No, but individual men and women always form groups.

I would say "no" to both, and my guess is that most people would agree that neither extreme would be the ideal. However, if the ideal falls somewhere in-between these two extremes, where should the line be drawn?

If your were empowered to engineer your ideal government, where would you begin? Would you attempt to be fair to all, or would you favor either capital or labor? Can prejudice and greed even be regulated, and if so, should they be?


My ideal scenario would be for all the major nations of the world to break into anarchy and reform into much smaller nations. I think the probably is countries and everything really are way to large. I think that it is that simple, power is to seperated from those they are supposed to serve. I mean our basic structure and representation is virtually the same as when the nation was formed, yet we now have 300 million compared to what a few million at that time. We have less representation than ever before. So, my solution is to break it all apart by population and each of those would be almost entirely self governing.

(in reply to kinkbound)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Where Should the Line Be Drawn? - 10/14/2008 11:16:41 AM   
corysub


Posts: 1492
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

FR

We already have term limits; they're called "elections".


I would be shocked if you really believed that...I wish I could .  Unfortunately, there has been a clever little device used by politicians "gerrymandering" that has created congressional districts that look as if they were designed by someone on crack.  You can google earth and actually get a map of congressional districts with the most obsecene gerrymandering.  In addition, there are numerous "safe" districts where the demographics are such that you have a certain kind of politician that you can never get rid of barring incarceration, death, or really screwing the taxpayer so boldly they revolt...as happend in Nassau County Long Island where the democrats took over from the republicans that ruled the roost for fifty years plus.  The same thing happened in many parts of the South when democrats were voted out because they lost touch with the folks back home and the republicans came into power.

Other than those glacial changes, that rightfully occured in 2006, and maybe in 2008, .... an election on local levels is pretty much in the bank for the incumbant.or red state-blue state definitions. The Presidential election is something else....there a strong political machine, and a little bit of fraud can swing an election since there are only a few percentage points generally seperating the parties.  This year is going to be a true test of the validity of our election system and its validity.
You actually can "Google Earth" gerrymandering if you care...

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Where Should the Line Be Drawn? - 10/14/2008 11:24:00 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

FR

We already have term limits; they're called "elections".


Yes, elections to vote for who governs the same socio-economic system. No one gets a choice as to what socio-economic system they would like to live in. The only time you get that choice is if enough people are prepared to fight at the barricades because if you vote for a different socio-economic system, the troops will be on the street within 24 hours.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Where Should the Line Be Drawn? - 10/14/2008 11:25:25 AM   
bipolarber


Posts: 2792
Joined: 9/25/2004
Status: offline 		I think the ideal government would be like that in Anne Rice's "Beauty" series... a benevolent monarchy, and we all raid other countries for sex slaves!

(Okay, so you can tell I'm not taking this kind of open ended question seriously, can't you?)

Alright... (sigh)  I still think that our democratic republic is still the best way to go. Even though the system is frequently abused by assholes from the inside. Provided we don't trade off the voting booths, I consider nightmares like Bush to be minor annoyances, in the grand scheme of things. Stick to the Constitution, trust in the intent of the founders, and you won't go far wrong.


(in reply to corysub)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Where Should the Line Be Drawn? - 10/14/2008 1:15:09 PM   
corysub


Posts: 1492
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bipolarber

I think the ideal government would be like that in Anne Rice's "Beauty" series... a benevolent monarchy, and we all raid other countries for sex slaves!

(Okay, so you can tell I'm not taking this kind of open ended question seriously, can't you?)

Alright... (sigh)  I still think that our democratic republic is still the best way to go. Even though the system is frequently abused by assholes from the inside. Provided we don't trade off the voting booths, I consider nightmares like Bush to be minor annoyances, in the grand scheme of things. Stick to the Constitution, trust in the intent of the founders, and you won't go far wrong.




Actually, if that Constitution thingy doesn't work out, your first idea sounds VERY interesting...

(in reply to bipolarber)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Where Should the Line Be Drawn? - 10/14/2008 9:43:23 PM   
kinkbound


Posts: 387
Joined: 9/15/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

...Going back to the OP, this brings about a third position between the two extremes, where the state on the one hand takes care to ensure all pegs are enabled but then leaves all pegs to fulfil their own natural inclinations, intervening only where necessary for the continuing health of the society...


What is your definition of being enabled? Does it include entitlements or stipends of any kind?

< Message edited by kinkbound -- 10/14/2008 10:10:28 PM >

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Where Should the Line Be Drawn? - 10/14/2008 9:55:36 PM   
kinkbound


Posts: 387
Joined: 9/15/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

quote:

kinkbound
If your were empowered to engineer your ideal government, where would you begin? Would you attempt to be fair to all, or would you favor either capital or labor? Can prejudice and greed even be regulated, and if so, should they be?

I think the question contains an underlying error in that it believes that such a thing as an ideal government is possible.

If you emphasise  "your ideal gov." then many have already tried that including Hitler, Pol Pot.
Note soft option do gooders ( eg Michael Foot for the Brits) rarely get elected into power and never try to take it by devious means.
As to the unintended consequences of "do goodery based on idealism" consider the transfer of resources from poor people in society to even poorer people. What frequently happens is those that received the largesse in the long term remain poor and those that were made to provide that help are made poorer.

So the the answer is .....
the question is unanswerable because if you believe that your policies, whatever they are,  will produce idealistic results then you are wrong.

I agree that there has been a long term trend to more social justice but that frequently rested on the use threat of force or the indolent ruling class realising that a skilled working/technical class was necessary and could be used to sustain privilege.


Interesting point, but my thoughts were to promote ideas based more upon one's individual ideals, and not so much based upon social/collective ideals. Though I fully recognize that this could be the very same thing for some people.

I'm not so sure I agree that a skilled working class is necessary to sustain privilege for the ruling class nearly as much as the concentration of wealth they already enjoy; which enables them to buy political influence and other key operatives. 

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Where Should the Line Be Drawn? - 10/14/2008 10:08:40 PM   
kinkbound


Posts: 387
Joined: 9/15/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

My ideal scenario would be for all the major nations of the world to break into anarchy and reform into much smaller nations. I think the probably is countries and everything really are way to large. I think that it is that simple, power is to seperated from those they are supposed to serve. I mean our basic structure and representation is virtually the same as when the nation was formed, yet we now have 300 million compared to what a few million at that time. We have less representation than ever before. So, my solution is to break it all apart by population and each of those would be almost entirely self governing.



Sort of like having each state going sovereign?

BTW, there were about 4 million people in the US in 1790.

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Where Should the Line Be Drawn? - 10/14/2008 10:13:39 PM   
kinkbound


Posts: 387
Joined: 9/15/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

FR

We already have term limits; they're called "elections".


Yes, elections to vote for who governs the same socio-economic system...


Yes, when you boil it down, that's about the size of it.

So, what's the solution?

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Where Should the Line Be Drawn? - 10/14/2008 10:18:15 PM   
kinkbound


Posts: 387
Joined: 9/15/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bipolarber

... I still think that our democratic republic is still the best way to go. Even though the system is frequently abused by assholes from the inside. Provided we don't trade off the voting booths, I consider nightmares like Bush to be minor annoyances, in the grand scheme of things. Stick to the Constitution, trust in the intent of the founders, and you won't go far wrong.


Well, okay. I guess this is about the closest vote for the status-quo that we've seen so far.

What do you think of the founding founder's missed opportunity to define money and its issuance?

(in reply to bipolarber)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Where Should the Line Be Drawn? - 10/14/2008 10:22:40 PM   
kinkbound


Posts: 387
Joined: 9/15/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

In my opinion, the "ideal government" would take the form of the Constitution of the United States.  The founders of our country had tremendous forsight and judegement in structuring a form of government that borrowed from the Greeks to the British system of law. 

You can never legislate prejudice..but what made our country great is the level of tolerance here that is far superior to anywhere else on the planet.  Groups have thrived here that would have been relegated to storekeepers or farmers back in the old country. Greed...greed is not a crime...unless people are so overcome with greed that they break the laws that protect the rights and property of others.  Than they should be sent away for a long time...something that only applies to poor people it seems and not well financed criminals or the wealthy. "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit"..and a killer walks free.

The only change I would make would be to legislate "term limits" on everyone in public office.  I think two terms for the President is fine, I think the Senate should have two four year terms as well, starting with the mid-term of a President so the people could change the power of Congress with respect to treaties.  I think Congress should be allowed no more than six years..maybe two three year terms so that they are not running for re-election the first day after they are sworn in.  The biggest problem is that Congress has become the absolute acme of the "Peter Principle".  Republican and democrat legislators are mostly in safe districts and while control shifts on the margin, generally we see the same old faces for decades getting more and more power under the present system, committee chairs, etc...and so someone like Pelosi, who was elected from a "left of center" district with under 300,000 votes, controls what comes to the floor and what doesn't.  Nowhere are people in the Congress moved up to positions of power based on intelligence or ability to perform for the public good...it's all "seniority".



With this as a near-tie or a close 2nd. 

< Message edited by kinkbound -- 10/14/2008 10:23:51 PM >

(in reply to corysub)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Where Should the Line Be Drawn? - 10/15/2008 12:21:49 AM   
BitaTruble


Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kinkbound

Is a big, intrusive, all-inclusive, nanny government the ideal?

On the opposite end of the spectrum, can Man, with its inherent prejudice and greed, be trusted to totally self-regulate?

I would say "no" to both, and my guess is that most people would agree that neither extreme would be the ideal. However, if the ideal falls somewhere in-between these two extremes, where should the line be drawn?

If your were empowered to engineer your ideal government, where would you begin? Would you attempt to be fair to all, or would you favor either capital or labor? Can prejudice and greed even be regulated, and if so, should they be?


You can put me down with the Constitutionalists. I think the Founding Fathers did a pretty good job and if we adhere to their wisdom, tweak as necessary, we'll do a whole lot better than trying to step on it.

Some tweaks I'd make:

I'd get rid of the electoral college. Needed it then, don't need it any more. To me majority rules works the majority of the time. Sure, we'll get it wrong sometimes, but in the grand scheme of things, we're still very young as a country so it's to be expected we'll stumble on occasion.

I'd impose term limits on all federal public service jobs which are gained through election/appointment. That includes judges, justices and congressman and I'd get rid of lame duck and mid-cycle elections by instituting a one term limit of 6 years for president, judges, congressman and justices with staggard elections so that the old mixes with the new. That will infuse a source of new blood, new brains and new ideas into government in a cyclical fashion without having to start fresh every six years. I would strongly urge states to impose the same for state public service jobs gained through election/appointment.

I'd would make it illegal to utilize the National Guard outside of our own borders. There's a reason it's called National Guard.

I would make the age to vote, register for selective service and drink the same. 22 - give our kids a chance to go to college before they have to go to war. Further, right now ex-felons can't vote. Once you've paid your dues to society for your crime I would give them back their right to vote. Once. Go back to prison again on a felony charge, then your right is gone for good.

I would completely rewrite the tax code (which would be a whole separate thread!), raise import tariffs, lower or eliminate export tariffs and give manufacturing corporations a reason to keep good jobs in this country by offering incentives for those that keep jobs here and imposing huge taxes on corporations which send jobs overseas then try to come back and sell their cheap shit to us. (Don't even get me started on Walmart!) 

Overall, I'd put the power into the hands of the people rather than into the hands of government. Novel idea, but damn.. seems to me that's the way it's supposed to be if we want to call ourselves a free democratic society.

There's going to be more which involve specific policy's, but hey, I have to get elected first.



_____________________________

"Oh, so it's just like
Rock, paper, scissors."

He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."


(in reply to kinkbound)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Where Should the Line Be Drawn? - 10/15/2008 3:37:43 AM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kinkbound

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

My ideal scenario would be for all the major nations of the world to break into anarchy and reform into much smaller nations. I think the probably is countries and everything really are way to large. I think that it is that simple, power is to seperated from those they are supposed to serve. I mean our basic structure and representation is virtually the same as when the nation was formed, yet we now have 300 million compared to what a few million at that time. We have less representation than ever before. So, my solution is to break it all apart by population and each of those would be almost entirely self governing.



Sort of like having each state going sovereign?

BTW, there were about 4 million people in the US in 1790.


Yeah, except states are even to populace now, so we'd probably end up with a 100+ states after we got done chop them to down to manageable populations in each one.

I pretty much want this country to be like it was in the beginning, with very little federal anything. In my head, the federal government should run the interstates, ensure access to ports, handle state disputes, and control the military(which should 100% never be used internally, I don't care what the reason is, barring like 80%+ congress approval on top of the state requesting it, and an emergency situation).

The rules are pretty good we already have. No slavery, Right to own weapons, Right to own property, Right to own your own labor,(until the IRS, I truly do hate and hate is not overstated, anyone and everything associated with the IRS, if you work for the IRS, you should shoot yourself in the head, I'll pay for the bullet, you have no soul, or principles). Anyway, the rules are already there, its just the Federal government took over everything, in terms of decisions, corrupted the concepts and so forth.

This country is filled with one true wayers, it's sick, no diversity in governance, drones, everywhere. I don't care where you go, the differences are so superficial, not to even matter.



(in reply to kinkbound)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Where Should the Line Be Drawn? - 10/15/2008 4:58:01 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kinkbound

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

...Going back to the OP, this brings about a third position between the two extremes, where the state on the one hand takes care to ensure all pegs are enabled but then leaves all pegs to fulfil their own natural inclinations, intervening only where necessary for the continuing health of the society...


What is your definition of being enabled? Does it include entitlements or stipends of any kind?


Each peg should get the development needed for its particular inherent inclinations and talents - not the "one size fits all" education that certainly we in the UK have gone for - an education which does not fit all and leaves the square pegs at a huge disadvantage.

The education system we have is designed for round pegs, and this is against a socio-economic background where there is little if any room for square pegs. The result is that the round pegs do well in school and in life, but the square pegs are lost at the age of about six.

If we ensured that square pegs got the education they needed, and then made provision for them to have the jobs to which their natural inclinations suited them, we should not have such big problems in this country. Instead we have allowed the whole to be take over by the economic interests of a very few who have no interest whatever in the health and wealth of the wider society.

The result of this is that the square pegs live on entitlements for the most part - welfare benefits. This enormous cost to the society, to keep a sizeable portion unemployed for the benefit of a very few is disgusting, and it is not simply a financial cost in benefits, but related costs in terms of the disintegration of the society as a whole and individuals in particular. Outsourcing the livelihoods of square pegs is not a cheaper option - taken as a whole its costs make it a very expensive option.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to kinkbound)
Profile   Post #: 36
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Where Should the Line Be Drawn? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094