Can we Create an America that can Lead the World

[Az]

Oh, and re: elected officials...

Democracy is the worse form of government, except for all the others.

Elect your leaders and you deal with shortsightedness due to electoral cycles.

Don't elect your leaders and you deal with their lack of accountability to the public.

I'll go with shortsightedness as the lesser of the two evils. Besides, one can work on shortsightedness - using it as a campaign issue, even.

-Arrian

I agree that the top executive, and the legislative have to be elected. Accountabilty is very important, and it's most important aspect is the mass media coverage.

But then you have the private sector, which is both unaccountable, and short-sighted.

[Iron Chancellor]

Of course, there is the saying "Democracy is the only government where the people get what they deserve."
And that fascist, Nazi-sympathising demagogue, Winston Churchill, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter."


Of course, I have to ask how communists can call anything evil or wrong or unethical if they do not believe in absolutes of good or evil.

[DuncanK]

Ned,

Freedom to me is freedom from restraint. By that definition people are not free in America. They have no other choice but to reliquish part of their wage to someone who maybe entirely undeserving of it.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Azazel
A government doesn't and shouldn't think that way, and should not try to increase 'profits', but to create a strong economical fundament. I think that this should be done by creating industries, predicting the supply because of the fact that the same system creates the demand .
It should be done by constantly streamlining the govt. according to scientific models, keeping an independent media that would detect malfunctions, creating a variety of products by competing designs, that would shift production capabilities according to demand.

There's no reason why that can't be done within a capitalist system. Here in Canada we have what we call Crown corporations. They're owned by the government but managed independantly just like any other corporation, and compete openly and fairly with the rest of the players. Some of them, like PetroCanada, have done quite well, without stifling the free market or private enterprise.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But then you have the private sector, which is both unaccountable, and short-sighted.

Of course the private sector is accountable! You just don't buy their stuff if they do bad things!

[Arrian]

Damn, Imran beat me to it.

The private sector is accountable. If a company chooses poorly, its shareholders will oust management. If it does REALLY poorly, it will go under. If it cheats, its executives will face law enforcement (needs to be better, clearly).

Duncan,

I shouldn't be King because I can make fish hooks. But I should receive some benifit for being so useful to society (no fishhooks, not many fish... maybe starvation). Otherwise, the next time I come up with a bright idea, I'm not gonna tell you about it!

-Arrian

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK


Willem,

Is it really fair for you to keep insisting that I'm proposing reinstating Russian style communism throughout the world when you know that I have stated clearly otherwise.

The point is Duncan that, just like you, the founders of the Soviet Union started out with good intentions. And look where it ended up. And frankly, you haven't really said anything new, you've just borrowed most of the same ideas that they had. It didn't work for them, why do you think it will work any better if we implement your ideas? You've offered no new slant on the subject at all, you've just been reiterating all the same old propoganda. How are your ideas fundamentally different from those of Lenin and Trotsky, and all the others that ushered in the "great socialist enterprise" back then?

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK

The diference is that I'm talking about a whole diferent situation here. I'm talking about the end of nationalism. I'm talking about communism without police state.

You're talking about yet another utopia that may never take place, and probably won't. Now there's nothing wrong that, it's good to have some ideals to strive for. But you also need to temper your ideals with a good dose of reality once in awhile. At least if you expect anyone to take you seriously.

[Az]

Damn, Imran beat me to it.

The private sector is accountable. If a company chooses poorly, its shareholders will oust management. If it does REALLY poorly, it will go under. If it cheats, its executives will face law enforcement (needs to be better, clearly).

There are different ways of organizing accountabilty in socialism as well.

in a more decentralized scenario, one company would sue the other. The management would be chosen by the workers, for example.
It could complain to oversight, that would change the management.
there are different ways to tackle such a problem.

There's no reason why that can't be done within a capitalist system. Here in Canada we have what we call Crown corporations. They're owned by the government but managed independantly just like any other corporation, and compete openly and fairly with the rest of the players. Some of them, like PetroCanada, have done quite well, without stifling the free market or private enterprise.

Well, if they're doing well, why do we need private ownership of industry as a pre-requisite of good management, and effectivness?

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK


And of course you agree that Arrian should be King because he knows how to make fish hooks and we should all suffer under his wrath.

And where did the concept of Absolute Monarchy ever creep into the discussion?

[Odin]

My Idea of a Communist society is one in which all industries are Co-ops, then they are truely controled by the consumer, not by greedy fat cats or government bereaucrats (hey that rhymes). This gives you the best of both worlds, the drive to innovate in private ownership, and the fairness for workers in a state owned industry. It would be like if everybody in a nation had equal number of stocks in a company.

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Ned,

Freedom to me is freedom from restraint. By that definition people are not free in America. They have no other choice but to reliquish part of their wage to someone who maybe entirely undeserving of it.

No, they have the choice to set up their own business and work for themselves.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Azazel

Well, if they're doing well, why do we need private ownership of industry as a pre-requisite of good management, and effectivness?

Well in the case of PetroCanada, it simply isn't large enough to satisfy the demands of all the motorists in Canada. It's just one of the many that are providing that particular product. And the fact that it might lose customers to the other players if they don't do it right provides an incentive for sound management.

[Az]

How about having 3 companies, all of them govt. controlled?


( we used to have this here, with banks )

[Arrian]

They have no other choice but to reliquish part of their wage to someone who maybe entirely undeserving of it.

Duncan,

Define "deserving." I ask for that because, taken out of context, the quote above could be ascribed to a conservative rich person who doesn't think the poor deserve his money (the progressive tax redistributing wealth and all that).

Different people have different ideas about what is "fair" you know. I think this thread illustrates that rather well.

-Arrian