Why have there been so few good political ideas in history?

[SageTree]

sage u seem to think i was dissing communism or something , altho i do often diss it,
that wasnt my main desire in this thread.

i was simply wondering why no one has ever tried to come up with something ELSE after capitalism and communism? like, with the variety of things out there, it just seems strange how everyone in the world fell into 2 camps, and no one seemed to care to think critically anymore about how to solve the problems of the world. its either solve them by letting the market take control or solve them by redistribution of wealthy peoples assets to poor people.

i dont know what i would come up with as another alternative, it just seems like there should be a variety of other options, and i was wondering why they never came about.


and then as i was thinking that, i was also thinking that if progressives want to make the world better and right wrongs and shit, why they are so wedded it seems to socialism when there might be a million other ideas out there that can do what they want without pissing the people who dont like socialism off...

its like the health care debate, the liberals said for so long that they wouldnt accept anything but the public option, public option public option, then they realized they could get people affordable access to healthcare in a vareity of other ways without a single payer public option, i think systems of government are the same.


i seriously want trying to diss communism , altho i would if that were the topic , my views on communism and socialism notwithstanding, i just believe there have got to be other ways out there that can fix the wrongs of society without taking away the hard earned lives the many middle class people enjoy, and also, that if we were creative these days and actually tried to find that way, that maybe the partisanship in the world and america would simply dissapear because the NEW way would appeal to a broad cross section of people and would make them think wow i can support this because it does good things but doesnt turn me off with other aspects of it like socialism or capitalism did. (in that persons opinion) .

Dude... watch that whole video and you might get some ideas and see alternatives ARE being practiced. The Dalai Lama's politics are love, compassion and equanimity. As long as people think some one has to 'win' it will only lead to 'loss'.

Socialism at it's core, holds a belief, dear to my heart, that we are all the same, nothing more nothing less and with perspective and a chance we can all add something to society.

Serious John, I implore of you. Watch this video, Love and peace are my only agenda.

[AK47]

Computer simulations assume knowledge. They are programmed by people that place their own pre-existing bias and presumed paradigms into the structures of the imaginary society. The old gigo "Garbage in Garbage out". The only way to know is to do.

[John F. Kerry]

Computer simulations assume knowledge. They are programmed by people that place their own pre-existing bias and presumed paradigms into the structures of the imaginary society. The old gigo "Garbage in Garbage out". The only way to know is to do.

thats true,
but on the other hand , we get 5 -7 day forcasts with pretty good accuracy and weve only had atmospheric satelite data for 40 years....


polls ARE political computer simulations, statistics as a subject, is older than modern society, these things already exist and already work to an astounding degree... exit polls after a presidential election can be extrapolated with almost 100% accuracy.

so i agree gIgO, but i dispute that all we could put in is garbage, if u ask me there are already some people using these techniques but applying them in ways that are not using the method to the fullest extent possible, they use it for exit polls and to win elections rather than to find solutions that dont piss people off and fix problems ie, net gain....

progress should imo mean net gain , game changing shit, not just rearranging the pieces and causing conflict between people by stealing from some to give to others.

[SageTree]

Thanks for the thanks Buddy!

Chapter 14 actually speak explicitly to the issue of Capitalism Vs Marxism .....

I take it 'intention' in the answer.

FORA.tv - His Holiness the Dalai Lama at The Aspen Institute

[verklingen]

why would progress be good for the people who rule us? wouldn't they only be interested in progressing an agenda to keep them and their own in place, even if it means stifling real progress as a society and as a nation?

[John F. Kerry]

the people who rule us (government) get thrown out every 2 or 4 years.


the ceo of mcdonalds doesnt rule you, so to be "free" from him , all you have to do is exercize your freedom of choice.

[SageTree]

I agree Verk. and that has much to do with intention of leading.

Leading to me is helping from virtue, not a career for gain.
That is, unless its equitable gain of course.

A good 'king' should be able to live as the people and be safe to sleep under a tree at night w/out protection beyond a blanket for the cold. I would think it would be obvious to people in leadership roles that there is serious irony in needing protection from the people they lead.

A real leader rises from the people and isn't self appointed or sought through 'skillful planning'.

That would be progress in my book.

the people who rule us (government) get thrown out every 2 or 4 years.

*cough cough* "We the people" anyone?


I thought the monarch was rejected?

[verklingen]

the people who rule us (government) get thrown out every 2 or 4 years.

and replaced by another empty suit from one of the same two parties? no, it seems like they keep themselves together just fine in fact

[SageTree]

and replaced by another empty suit from one of the same two parties? no, it seems like they keep themselves together just fine in fact

A blood line by any other name!

[John F. Kerry]

this topic has definately brought up some weird points , which is good, cuz if i was just talking to myself i woudnt get this stuff

[John F. Kerry]

some of the points your making seem like they wouldnt work too well in a large society sage, how is the president supposed to rise up by getting the admiration of all the people when some of the people live in alaska and some live in maine?

i think what your saying has its place, but not in national government.

if your proposing something along the lines of a renunciation of national govenrments and reverting to smaller local controls i say intriguing, but not without its own set of problems.

[SageTree]

Not belittling what you have to say, just want it to fit nicely in a not intimidating size! har har har!

some of the points your making seem like they wouldnt work too well in a large society sage, how is the president supposed to rise up by getting the admiration of all the people when some of the people live in alaska and some live in maine?

i think what your saying has its place, but not in national government.

if your proposing something along the lines of a renunciation of national govenrments and reverting to smaller local controls i say intriguing, but not without its own set of problems.

I don't have specific suggests here John, but I do have a cool metaphor.

To me is seems insane to think war will end war. I like a good paradox, but to me, sorry, this is idiocy.

The metaphor here is that you partially agreed/acknowledged what I said in my posts, there fore, it became confounding to create a retort, which is often pretty damn easy with your words, no offense .

As a moderator on here for 10 years I have seen what happens when you come down on people. There is often back lash. However the last several years many of the people I'm sure I've pissed off, thinking IRC here, have come now with concerns on the board, personal cares, and constructive thoughts. I will accredit this to their growth as people, but also my growth.

Fore, I believe, as I've learned through conscious effort, to see their opinions and share why I have mine are important, harmony has abounded between us. So that when a concern arises, I don't get called a Nazi Mod or whatever, I get treated as an exception, and am greeted with kind cares. Making it even easier to try and bargain with them as well as fellow mods.

My Mom always said 'You catch more flies with honey than vinegar'. I find this true, as I practice compassion that all concerns, no matter how crazy they seem sometimes, are equally valid for talking on. Although not always worth considering. That when the talking is done, no one leaves feeling mistreated or angry.

There are of course case where this isn't so, but I find these 'hard headed passionate types' are easier to see, and easier to sprinkle with extra attention.

What is this happened at a national level or something close to it?


So this is where I'm house sitting right now and found this SUPER interesting and on topic:

Northwest Territories-Government

Consensus government is a non-partisan, democratic system of government in use in two Canadian territories. Consensus government is also in use in Guernsey in the Channel Islands.
This system exists in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, territories with relatively large aboriginal populations, and was accordingly inspired by traditional aboriginal systems of governance. Members of the legislature are elected as independents from single member districts by simple plurality voting. As in other Westminster system parliaments the legislature selects the premier, the speaker and the cabinet from amongst themselves, and the government is dependent on retaining the confidence of the legislature. However due to the absence of political parties there is no formal opposition and instead of party caucuses members regularly participate in a caucus of all members of the legislature.
While consensus models of discourse often require that a true consensus be reached, in consensus government policies advanced by the government are decided upon by majority vote; the government must therefore support policies that please a majority of the entire legislature if it wants them to pass. Notions of party discipline are not relevant to such deliberations.
The States of Guernsey (the island's parliament) last endorsed the system of consensus government by committees in 2002, when it rejected by a very significant majority a proposition to replace the system with executive/cabinet-style government.
Consensus government by committees in Guernsey is an alternative to party-based and ministerial government. Government departments are run not by individuals with ministerial authority, but by boards or committees of five members elected by the Assembly (parliament) of 47 members.
All major items of policy are taken to the Assembly, where they are approved, amended or rejected. Most items are determined by simple majority voting.
At the most recent general election of people's deputies (members), all candidates stood as independents without affiliation to any party. Political parties have existed from time to time, but with little success.
In 2009, a majority of members of Guernsey's government signed a letter outlining their continuing commitment to consensus government by committees and opposition to executive/cabinet-style government."]Consensus government[/URL] is a non-partisan, democratic system of government in use in two Canadian territories. Consensus government is also in use in Guernsey in the Channel Islands.
This system exists in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, territories with relatively large aboriginal populations, and was accordingly inspired by traditional aboriginal systems of governance. Members of the legislature are elected as independents from single member districts by simple plurality voting. As in other Westminster system parliaments the legislature selects the premier, the speaker and the cabinet from amongst themselves, and the government is dependent on retaining the confidence of the legislature. However due to the absence of political parties there is no formal opposition and instead of party caucuses members regularly participate in a caucus of all members of the legislature.[1]
While consensus models of discourse often require that a true consensus be reached, in consensus government policies advanced by the government are decided upon by majority vote; the government must therefore support policies that please a majority of the entire legislature if it wants them to pass. Notions of party discipline are not relevant to such deliberations.
The States of Guernsey (the island's parliament) last endorsed the system of consensus government by committees in 2002, when it rejected by a very significant majority a proposition to replace the system with executive/cabinet-style government.
Consensus government by committees in Guernsey is an alternative to party-based and ministerial government. Government departments are run not by individuals with ministerial authority, but by boards or committees of five members elected by the Assembly (parliament) of 47 members.
All major items of policy are taken to the Assembly, where they are approved, amended or rejected. Most items are determined by simple majority voting.
At the most recent general election of people's deputies (members), all candidates stood as independents without affiliation to any party. Political parties have existed from time to time, but with little success.
In 2009, a majority of members of Guernsey's government signed a letter outlining their continuing commitment to consensus government by committees and opposition to executive/cabinet-style government.

I don't have a 17 point plan for you, but I know that if we felt like the people who we trusted to guide us with their expertise in law and so forth, heard us more often, I imagine much harmony would blossom as well.

When Bush was quoted as saying " I don't care what public opinion is" people wig out, because they put him there or at least shared in the process. Or. What if, when there was a bombing some one asked 'what is that all about' would further bombing be averted on BOTH sides, know there was a 'Look, this is how I see it' available? What if Obama sat down and poured out his heart for humanity and talked about how a healthy America is a stronger People, more sharp and well able to learn. What if he said to the 'Big Bosses' that if they had healthy people, they have healthy workers and more product to sell? Where could the economy be right now? More people could work, have less hours amongst them individually and there was time to walk in the parks and see your neighbours and wave, instead of waving a finger as they cut you off racing to work for survival?

Well perhaps I did have more to say that I thought Surprising right?

I am sure John you wish for happiness and safety as we all do, and your concerns are just as valid as anyone. There my be many ways to touch it at once, but I feel that is the one truth.

People who feel valued might even want to get out of bed in the morning and enjoy creating fruits of the labour and get off their penchant .

Thanks for listening.

SageTree

[FourtySecondRip]

thats true,
but on the other hand , we get 5 -7 day forcasts with pretty good accuracy and weve only had atmospheric satelite data for 40 years....


polls ARE political computer simulations, statistics as a subject, is older than modern society, these things already exist and already work to an astounding degree... exit polls after a presidential election can be extrapolated with almost 100% accuracy.

so i agree gIgO, but i dispute that all we could put in is garbage, if u ask me there are already some people using these techniques but applying them in ways that are not using the method to the fullest extent possible, they use it for exit polls and to win elections rather than to find solutions that dont piss people off and fix problems ie, net gain....

progress should imo mean net gain , game changing shit, not just rearranging the pieces and causing conflict between people by stealing from some to give to others.

well the weather isnt irrational, religious, ambitious, or anything that makes simulating society tricky. they could use stuff like the polls to find out how many people would support trying a particular system or something like that. but simulating how it all would actually play out irl is the stuff people actually want to know but doesnt seem possible atm. at least imo. communism looks good on paper but it just doesnt pan out very well when its actually applied

[toastyroach]

didn't read too far in this thread...

but USA (and likely all the world) capitalism IS redistrubution in the form of tax brackets

i'm somewhere in the top 90% of single person income in the united states (nm the world).... and I'm solid lower middle class. The middle class gets taxed so fuckin bad it's reducilous. The government alone takes nearly 1/3rd of EACH OF MY PAYCHECKS and trying to buy a house in this state is a nightmare because anything decent cost 300k, and that's living in central part of this state where I would have to commute north to work. Living north, the same house would go for 500... which means either way I'd be living like all my friends I work with that own their houses, broke as fuck... aka solid lower middle class....

[zerodown]

Without reading much of the topic, I'd say the reason for the lack of change is bullshit fed to us by our mighty tv sets sitting on our altar in the middle of the family room.

Example: I have been reading a lot into this global warming issue, and I no longer believe the earth is in serious threat because of humans, yet last night I was watching the mighty tv box, and somehow ended up in history channel, there was a show about "global warming". And let me tell you, I almost puked at how crappy info they fed the viewers, too much bullshit, humans are solely responsible for the earth's destruction due to warming says HC. History Channel, people watch this shows as if the people at HC wouldn't tell a lie.

There was no real information, nothing that proves anything, mostly it was a bunch of beautiful scenes like volcanoes erupting, divers on sea, ice caps, and a background voice saying something like "scientists have studied this phenomena, they have used data from volcanoes, co2 levels, etc... and they all agree, global warming is caused by humans."

Yeah thats pretty much what the show was, and the audience sees these things and believes every word.

I think comedy shows like jon stewart are more serious than these supposedly trustworthy channels.

If we're fed bullshit how can we even think about changing shit? how can we come up with a new way?

Its all tightly controlled by the few who set it up, only way I see change is through revolution, but that is demonized to no end by our tv sets.





Oh and by the way, not long ago I gave a quick study of the different isms and ways for societies to live and from the ones we know already, I came to the conclusion(IMO) that the best one so far is anarcho-capitalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism (full wiki)

Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist anarchist[1] political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services are provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through compulsory taxation, and money is privately produced in an open market. Because personal and economic activities are regulated by the natural laws of the market through private law rather than through politics, victimless crimes, and crimes against the state are rendered moot.

Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based in voluntary trade of private property (including money, consumer goods, land, and capital goods) and services in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity, but also recognize charity and communal arrangements as part of the same voluntary ethic.[2] Though anarcho-capitalists are known for asserting a right to private (individualized or joint non-public) property, some propose that non-state public/community property can also exist in an anarcho-capitalist society.[3] For them, what is important is that it is acquired and transferred without help or hindrance from the compulsory state. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that the only just, and/or most economically-beneficial, way to acquire property is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud.[4]

Anarcho-capitalists see free-market capitalism as the basis for a free and prosperous society. Murray Rothbard said that the difference between free-market capitalism and "state capitalism" is the difference between "peaceful, voluntary exchange" and a collusive partnership between business and government that uses coercion to subvert the free market.[5] "Capitalism," as anarcho-capitalists employ the term, is not to be confused with state monopoly capitalism, crony capitalism, corporatism, or contemporary mixed economies, wherein natural market incentives and disincentives are skewed by state intervention.[6] So they reject the state, based on the belief that states are aggressive entities which steal property (through taxation and expropriation), initiate aggression, are a compulsory monopoly on the use of defensive and/or punitive force, use their coercive powers to benefit some businesses and individuals at the expense of others, create monopolies, restrict trade, and restrict personal freedoms via drug laws, compulsory education, conscription, laws on food and morality, and the like. The embrace of unfettered capitalism leads to considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists and many social anarchists who tend to distrust the market, and believe that free-market capitalism is inherently authoritarian.

[SageTree]

didn't read too far in this thread...

but USA (and likely all the world) capitalism IS redistrubution in the form of tax brackets

i'm somewhere in the top 90% of single person income in the united states (nm the world).... and I'm solid lower middle class. The middle class gets taxed so fuckin bad it's reducilous. The government alone takes nearly 1/3rd of EACH OF MY PAYCHECKS and trying to buy a house in this state is a nightmare because anything decent cost 300k, and that's living in central part of this state where I would have to commute north to work. Living north, the same house would go for 500... which means either way I'd be living like all my friends I work with that own their houses, broke as fuck... aka solid lower middle class....

I'd tend to agree that is the concept, but would say they are taking it from the wrong end, and putting in the wrong places. Hence trickle down is more like, ice sickles in the tundra, you only seem them shit like 2 times a year for a day or two.

[AK47]

Statistics, usually work on the general public because they are so meaningless on their own. They can be manipulated to show whatever the person or organization wants. Basically there are three levels of fallacy, lies, damned lies, and statistics. (Mark Twain <not direct quote, but general meaning ) I have taken statistics at the graduate level. I know how they can be abused. Don't trust them.
And not everything will be garbage, just enough bias based conjecture to throw off any results. As for polls, they can be plebiscites that use the right wording to get the results one wants. Ask 10 people "How Fast they were Going?". Then ask 10 more "What was your miles per hour?" first one will be 10-15 more than the other in average. It works for everything.

[apathybullet]

The reason why no better system has been put in place is because it works just perfectly for the party concerned. It's not about us, it's about them. The fatcats at the very top of the totem pole, looking down on us without even thanking us for making them the overly-rich bastards they are.

If they wanted everyone to be equal, we would be. If they wanted this to be fair, it would be. It's about money, it's about them being about to do WHATEVER they want. This is not our country, it is their country.

I agree that a better system should be put in place, in fact I don't believe that it would be that difficult. Taking away from those who have an excess of money would be the absolute first step, and also a step we will never reach in our lifetimes. So, the REAL first step would be to eliminate the very ones who stand in the way of making the desired first step a possibility, and not just a pipedream.

[John F. Kerry]

^ do u think there is any way for it to not be the first step?


like im all for pulling a coke superbowl ad on bill gates and warren buffet, but even with their 100 billion dollars, i dont think wed make things any better, and if we needed there 100 billion to make it bette,r what would we do when we spend that in 2 weeks and need more?

im not against rich people paying up, or paying their fair share.

i think people on the liberal dem side get too hung up on the paying and the forcing people to do what the mob demands, and worry far too little about where the money goes and whether it will go to build a better world and whether every penny spent in this way will allow us to spend 1 penny less somewhere down the line because we empowed someone to make their life better by the spending... if the ideas came first, and people agreed about the ideas, i think the money would be secondary.

[verklingen]

^ the thing is that so much of our wealth is not doing anything. it's not creating jobs, it's not creating better infrastructure, it's not building schools or hospitals or fire departments. corporations and extremely wealthy individuals merely sit on it and methodically collect more to sit on. the country is literally withering away because of this. it's fundamentally no different than the countries in africa who are lead by warlords and whom we are so fond of calling corrupt, the only difference is scale.

think about it man. wealth isn't a thing, it represents something. labor is the real wealth. every single american worker labors in their field for the wealth of the nation, and every year the american worker takes home less money while taking on more debt. how do you not see a problem with this? it's not a simple matter of "lower taxes on businesses so they can pay more wages." our economy and systyms of commerce have been built from the ground up to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. there's a reason that that adage has been around for centuries.

the solution isn't "TAKE FROM THE RICH SO ALL THE LOWLIFES CAN HAVE FREE STUFF!!!!!" it's going to take an entirely new economic paradigm that can ensure consistent growth among all sectors. it just so happens, though, that such begins at the birth of our every citizen whom we have the duty of nurturing toward the level of productivity this aim requires. hell, it even means a rethinking of what we mean by "productivity."

it's going to take a fuckload of work, whatever it is. and i'm tired of you dismissing everything that goes contrary to the status quo as "liberal dem side." shit's ridiculous but i don't expect you to be above it