Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
It's actually ARPANET and the dept of defense contracted BBN Technologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBN_Technologies) for its development.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
It's actually ARPANET and the dept of defense contracted BBN Technologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBN_Technologies) for its development.
Actually, it was founded on one of two things, depending on how you look at.Quote:
Originally Posted by 41times
Original Pilgrims - Religious tolerance (coupled with opportunity)
Founding of America - Taxation without representation
Last time I checked, you have representation.
I think this is along the lines of what he was saying.. .that the project was originally started by the government, and used civilian contractors to help them. (Like the way fighter jets are made... civilian production with military leadership involved in the design.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I don't think he was implying that the military/government alone did all the work.
Eh, tomato tamahto.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Not in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
We need to go back to having one representative for every 30,000 to 50,000 people. There would be too many representatives to be bought-off, and the people can actually meet their elected officials.
I can't really argue with that idea too much... though the idea of MORE politicians somewhat makes me cringe. :lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
There would be about 100,000 representatives. Do you think corporation could buy 50,000 votes, or donate to that many during election time?Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
I think this put our political system back where it was intended.
On the one hand, I really like your idea of more specific, err, representative representation and would be more than willing to investigate it's feasibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
At the same time, considering the pittances (proportionately to their earnings) corporations donate to politicians as is, I have trouble believing corporations would so much as break a sweat paying off a larger number of them, so I'm not convinced your idea would put a damper on graft/corruption. The cost/benefit ratio for buying off politicians makes them one of the safest and most profitable investments a company can make.
You also have to consider how much harder journalistic oversight would become of such a vast body of politicians. A whole army of reporters would have to spring up out of nowhere to keep these guys honest.
We can subsidize the free press with some stimulus money and create jobs. We'll all be iReporters. :downspin:Quote:
Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar
I guess that's what the world is moving towards (iReporters, not subsidies), but talk about shit getting complicated... not only would we need more reporters to keep the increased #'s of politicians honest, we'd need a geometrically larger amount of reporters to keep our political beat-writers honest... what a fucking mess, man! :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Stringer_Bell
Yes, but objectively speaking, socialism has nothing to do with that said ruin. Our "need" to borrow outweighs our "want" to repay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan
System of financial and social structure a complete afterthought under that way of thinking.
I have not read all the posts in this thread (out of pocket for a week or so), but I have to say that this is one of the most cogent comments on this topic I have ever seen anywhereQuote:
Originally Posted by rjv
Insightful.
Articulate.
Impressive.
Thanks, rjv
....so how would you pay this new army of Representatives?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Tax hikes for everybody! Whoot!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
You mean ~10,000 representatives...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The idea does have some merit.
I will contend it will pay for itself by saving on unnecessary spending. There will be too many to develop the same mindset. they will be more accountable to the people since they don't have an unmanageable number to see as "pests."Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Ooops...Quote:
Originally Posted by Phenomanul
Thanx for the correction.
I would rather drastically reduce or instate a hard cap on all campaign funds.
You can only raise and spend x amount of money. That's it. Make it a manageable number and a number that the public can raise for the candidate.
Next, guarantee 1 commercial spot that run for a week or 2 for the top x candidates. The commercials can be on the channel of their choosing, the government gives a tax credit to the TV network for running the commercial.
stuff like that. remove the financial power that these corporations have.
the secret to fixing all of this is to empower political candidates to be able to run a campaign, win the campaign, and serve the public without owing anything to anyone but their constituents.
biggest problem left, after implementing that, would be the temptation of greed while in office, but that will never go away.
that's much more manageable than actually owing people things.
The legislators, aided by the extreme activist pro-institution/anti-citizen Supreme Court, won't ever take corporate/capitalist money out of politics because the legislators, in office, coming into office, after-office, all are captured by/dependent upon those dollars.
And those dollars go to political campaigns run on corporate media, $Bs back into corporate pockets.
American democracy is long dead, the American voter long disenfranchised.
American corporatocracy is The Only Game in Town.
My humble attempt to answer a very tough question.
But first what is socialism?
Wikipedia describes it as follows:
Socialism is a political philosophy that encompasses various theories of economic organization based on either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3] A more comprehensive definition of socialism is an economic system that directly maximizes use-values as opposed to exchange-values and has transcended commodity production and wage labor, along with a corresponding set of social and economic relations, including the organization of economic institutions, the method of resource allocation and post-monetary calculation based on some physical magnitude;[4] often implying a method of compensation based on individual merit, the amount of labor expended or individual contribution.[5]
Socialists generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. This in turn creates an unequal society, that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential,[6] and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.
1) As an American I've been steeped in the history of individual responsibility, taking risks but reaping the majority of the rewards if successful and the belief that the state need not interfere with my individual pursuits. That old saying - Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Pure socialism threatens those very ideas. If enacted it would take away the majority of the rewards people would have otherwise had in order to redistribute wealth on a perceived equal and fair basis. Since most people pursue their best interests socialism would threaten the productive/very productive segment of society. That to me helps explain somewhat it's and communism's lure to the least/less productive segment of society. They get something more than they have presently at little perceived cost to them.
Viewing the definition of socialism above it seems to me that it's very essence is contrary to the "American Way".
2) Communism or the fear of - For 70 years, highlighted by the Cold War, this country has had a bad taste towards government intervention into the lives of it's citizens. Heck the USA was started over that very idea. The preception that socialism could lead to communism I think still persists among the people. Back in the 50's with both sides having the BOMB and after Sputnik there was a real perceived fear of utter and total destruction. Even our response to the Soviets was MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. The selling of bomb shelters proliferated and even movies and TV shows touched on this. On the beach with Gregory Peck was a movie about a world wide nuclear holocaust and The Teilight Zone produced several episodes about this subject, too.
3) Passed failed experiments - Great Britain back in the early 70s went that way. And what did they do? Nationalized major industries in order to "help" the citizens get a shot at a better way of life. They felt that in nationalizing the major industries of the country they could consolidate and therefore make more effecient those services they provide the public. Health was the PM and by the late 70s he was out and that set up Thatcher's rise to power in the 80s. Regardless of what he was trying to do he did pass laws that took over private property in the name of the state to benefit the people. It failed and failed miserably. Otherwise Thatcher wouldn't have had such an overwhelming victory with years in office.
Primarily I think it is the fear of "Big Brother" that still permeates most people's thinking on the subject. The Republican party has played this card many times when describing in what direction the Democratic party really wants this country to go. If a pure form of socialism were to be enacted I believe that the only way for it to succeed would for the USA to become a one party state. You just can't put socialism in place and not give it time to take hold and work. And I believe that 4 - 8 years (two presidential terms) isn't enough time. In order for it to really be effective you will have to keep it in place for several decades. The massive social and economic upheavel that would occur in order to truly socialize (according to the above definition) this country would be monumental. All major industries to be nationalized and the greatest redistribution of wealth the world had ever seen. That wont go down without a fight. We are presently socializing this country a little bit at a time. Hopefully we can strike a good and fair balance between capitalism and socialism. I think they can both co-exist but each side will have to give something to get something. With socialism the nationalization of major industries will have to go. It's not compatible with capitalistic thought. Capitalism will have to scale back the materialistic inequity in society by giving up the large concentration of wealth at the very top and spread it around. People need incentive to achieve and at the present rate many feel that the incentives are disappearing. I think I saw a survey several years ago that stated that the upcoming generations don't feel that their children will have a better life than they do. Take hope out of the human equation and misery soon follows. And its consequences, too.
I guess it boils down to the individual vs. the village. And most people will choose their wants and needs over the group's. At this point in our history most want to "get theirs" and its up to you to make it happen. JFK's famous statement:"Ask not what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for your country" is an ideal that for most, if not forced to do so out of the sheer necessity, wouldn't embrace. Or at least to the point I think socialism would want the individual to.
And the socialists are correct about an unequal society. But to me if you look at the human species you will see an unequal distribution of talent. We are like a bell curve with the few very talented and brilliant at one end with their counterparts on the other end of the scale. And to different degrees the rest of us are stuck in the middle. So it would seem obvious that those on the "plus" side of the curve will come to dominate the ones on the other side and especially those at the very end of the 'plus" side.
That's completely true, but no man is an island to himself, although some try to be...so it is up to the 'most talented' individuals to look out for the 'less talented'...we don't see a lot of that these days....it's more of the 'every man for himself, screw everyone else' capitalism...Quote:
And the socialists are correct about an unequal society. But to me if you look at the human species you will see an unequal distribution of talent. We are like a bell curve with the few very talented and brilliant at one end with their counterparts on the other end of the scale. And to different degrees the rest of us are stuck in the middle. So it would seem obvious that those on the "plus" side of the curve will come to dominate the ones on the other side and especially those at the very end of the 'plus" side.
Agreed. We need more Hersheys in the world. But if you look at our species and consider some of the advances made so far then there is hope that we will move towards a more compassionate society eventually. But knowing our past that road will be pretty bloody. We have such an amaing ability ot come together in the most terrible of times to do much good but on the other hand can take life in large quantites so callously and with little if any feeling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
There would be constitutional problems doing that. I think we need to limit that contributions can only be given by those who are, or would be represented by them. Still have legal issues with that, but can probably be overcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiHeat