Places to Chat
Political Philosophy
Chatterbox: Chirp at Cricket
Political Philosophy
Political Philosophy
This is a debate thread, and be warned.
Political Philosophy is the study of government. What is the best type of government, how should a ruler act, taxes, ect.
And this is the thread that is about that.
Rules:
You may post under a pseudonyn, and no guessing who that is. This is not an SI.
This is a discussion, so be nice. No direct attacks, only ideas.
If you think you can't be nice, leave right now.
No using modern politician's names. This is philosophy. People like Karl Marx, Churchhill, George Washington, and other old politicians and philosophers are fine, but nobody modern, please.
As I said before, if anyone tries to guess me, I will quit.
First topic: What is the best political system.
I am a big fan of Socialism, or very Liberal Capitalism.
I think that if we don't have a Socialist Government, we should have a Capitalist Government with higher taxes and more benifits for the sick, homeless, impovrished, and disenfranchised.
PS: Feel Free to post as "..." or "Hidden" or "Anonymous" if you feel shy about haveing any sort of clue about your identity here. Also feel free to post under your CB names.
~Aristotle42 out.
submitted by Aristotle42, age Very Old, Greece
(August 14, 2016 - 11:35 am)
(August 14, 2016 - 11:35 am)
On the occasions it's been tried on a large scale, socialism has failed because (at least this is a major reason) it's necessary to have a powerful government to redistribute wealth, and powerful governments are composed of corruptible people, and the powerful government has become tyrannical. How do you propose to overcome this difficulty?
(August 14, 2016 - 2:59 pm)
Well, you can achive this through a lowering of the income tax to about 30-45% of total income. Many Northern European contries operate on a Socialist government. It is a cultural trend of giving that can help capacitate this.
A larger countrie can be split into smaller ones, and use a similar princapal to the EU.
(August 14, 2016 - 3:42 pm)
Since the social 'spirit of giving' is a necessary component of a good socialist system, what do you think should be done in places where that spirit doesn't already exist, ie, countries that resist socialism?
(August 14, 2016 - 4:30 pm)
Political activism is the best way to create a government that works for people. However, most people are either afraid, or don't care.
(August 14, 2016 - 9:42 pm)
What do you think should be done in the case of such fearful or unconcerned people? Why would those who are afraid be afraid?
(August 14, 2016 - 10:33 pm)
They must be "liberated".
That can mean:
(a) When a sociaty is not caring, a leader must draw attention to the problem.
(b) When a governemnt rules by fear, there need to be a person who unites them, or a invasion of the contrie by another.
(August 15, 2016 - 9:56 am)
A separate line of inquiry - Marx's motto was, IIRC, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," which surely is the ideal and epitome of social justice.
In a socialist government or in a "very liberal" capitalist government, how are a person's needs or abilities to be determined?
(August 14, 2016 - 10:39 pm)
You are starting to remind me of my best friend combined with my teacher last year.
Well, if everyone is given essentials, most people would get what they need. But the system could be improved by different taxes and benifits for different people. The richer members of society could recieve slightly higher taxes, and possibly less benifits, while poorer members could receive waore benifits and slightly less taxes. We are talking about Socialised Capitalism, not Communism or extremely Liberal Socialsim.
In a way, Communism is way better than extremely Liberal Socialist government. I will talk about that tommorow.
Does anyone else, besides Oregano, know anything about Political Philosophy?
(August 14, 2016 - 11:19 pm)
Hm... in your system, as I understand it, a wealthy person is taxed more than a poor person. Does your system distinguish between a person who is wealthy through (for instance) inheritance and one who is wealthy through hard work? Or between a poor person who is poor because (for instance) he has less well-paid skills and many children and one who is poor through laziness? If so, how would you tell the difference?
(August 15, 2016 - 10:28 am)
I'm sorry, im going to have to disagree with you on Socialism. It just doesn't work! I am a Republican and small government person. Also, higher taxes! NO! I don't like this American system of taxes. People that are rich and hardworking have to pay taxes for lazy Americans to sit at home. I am not saying all Americans are lazy, sitting at home; some genuinely can't find jobs or stuff like that. But, there are definitely people taking advantage of this to sit at home. I think it should not be the governments job to do all this social security stuff and donation funds, ect; I think it should be churches, priviteowned orgNizations, or the states job. If there were higher taxes, there is very little economic growth and since of heavy bills, more people become poor and it's just a disaster. Socialism doesn't work either. Why should all MY hard work and benefits be shared by force? I should be able to choose to share my things, not forced.
(August 15, 2016 - 6:03 am)
Think of Socialism as an ongoing New Deal. Roosevelt had no problem getting a inpovrished population to get to work. Well, I imagine the part of the population that refuses to work, if any, would then work, given the correct motivation.
People like strong government in times of need. Some of the best leaders in America and Britian gained office during WWII.
You are running a risky propisation: if the government lacks the funds to help people, what happens when your hometown gets destroyed? If the government has enough money and power, like in a Socialist state, then major help can be sent. In that position, do you want your life in the hands of a frail government?
Another thing: in a true Socialist government, the governemnt provides insurance and healthcare. That means:
(a) There are less corporations.
(b) Everyone gets healthcare*
(c) The governemnt can actualy help if your house gets burned down.
(d) What if you get kicked out of your job? The government can help.
Socialism still has a Capitalist economy, and besides the taxes, your money is yours. Socialism is not Communism.
*In the case of a world-wide outbreak, the government can really save lives.
(August 15, 2016 - 9:48 am)
Under a socialist government, what do you do when the state-run systems are inefficient (for instance, needlessly expensive)? Can you create private versions that are more efficient? If everyone switches to the efficient private version, what happens to the state-run system?
In Britain, where healthcare is nationalized, resources are not sufficient to take care of everyone. Therefore many are denied healthcare, arbitrarily and "unjustly." What should be done?
(August 15, 2016 - 10:36 am)
Think of it like this: a bully is hoarding alll the blocks. Another kid has none. The teacher has to take some blocks from the bully.
That is Socialism.
(August 15, 2016 - 10:12 am)
Given that in a (hypothetical) socialist system, the parties involved are all adults rather than children in a classroom, who is the "teacher"? Why should I trust him to be fair?
(August 15, 2016 - 3:50 pm)
Heh, I am also a Republican now (full disclosure), or perhaps not yet, since I just did the registration form yesterday :P
Well, to play the "devil's" (or Aristotle's, in this case) advocate: If the outcome of an ideal socialist system is justice according to the differences of its citizens (accomplished by the intervention and regulation of the state), and the outcome of an ideal capitalist system is justice according to the differences of its citizens (accomplished by private charities, churches and other methods), then a socialist state is really the enforcer of morality. It's "making sure" that everyone gets what they deserve.
One could say that the state shouldn't be enforcing morality, because the role of the state is to keep order in civil society (or, perhaps, because morality often carries religious justification, and the chruch and the state should be separate; or, perhaps, because morality is relatively arbitrary - there are multiple possible reasons). But how does the state keep order? It enforces laws, and laws are very often reflections of ideas about morality. A law about equality of voting rights (because it asserts equality of persons) is therefore not really different from a law enforcing basic income, for instance. :D
I don't agree with that conclusion, however. If (a) the ideal outcomes of both systems (see earlier paragraph) are the same and only the means to accomplish it are different and (b) both systems, in order to fulfill their ideal, require societal cooperation and willingness to help others who are in trouble, what makes one system better than the other?
I would then argue that capitalism is a better system, as it is less centralized and therefore less bureaucratic and therefore more adaptable to specific, individual circumstances.
And, in conclusion... both systems described above are greatly idealized, because they rely on the assumption that men (humans) are supremely willing to help each other out. :P
(August 15, 2016 - 10:17 am)