Republicans or Democrats?

[SirNitram]

The alternative to a democracy is not automatically a dictatorship. Remarkably, there is a whole spectrum of ways of running things, and it does not go from 'democracy' to 'dictatorship' instantly.

Of course, the ideal government is the smartest individuals forming a ruling council. Like several others, I never saw the problem with this form of elitism. Do you want to be ruled by the guy who can figure out how to solve the problems, or by the guy who ate paste through fifth grade?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The alternative to a democracy is not automatically a dictatorship. Remarkably, there is a whole spectrum of ways of running things, and it does not go from 'democracy' to 'dictatorship' instantly.

There are a series of kinds of government, and each one has varying degrees, but Democracy can easily become Tyranny if it is left unchecked. Of course, it can also become anarchy. That's why no modern "democratic" country is a true democracy.

Of course, the ideal government is the smartest individuals forming a ruling council. Like several others, I never saw the problem with this form of elitism. Do you want to be ruled by the guy who can figure out how to solve the problems, or by the guy who ate paste through fifth grade?

I disagree with this. I don't think that any one system by itself is ideal--this system may have advantages but they rely on the perfect motivations of these people, and then on the perfection motivations of the people who replace them and on down the line. I think that the only "ideal" government that can really be considered is a workable one--anything else can't be called ideal because it's unworkable. It's just a utopian fantasy if it can't be put in place, and that's what such a government relying on good nature is.

Ideal, then, would be to balance out various powers--democratic rights with certain checks. One possible check is in fact a body which represents successful people measured by some reasonably if not perfectly, but acceptable unimpeachable standard.

[SirNitram]

The alternative to a democracy is not automatically a dictatorship. Remarkably, there is a whole spectrum of ways of running things, and it does not go from 'democracy' to 'dictatorship' instantly.

There are a series of kinds of government, and each one has varying degrees, but Democracy can easily become Tyranny if it is left unchecked. Of course, it can also become anarchy. That's why no modern "democratic" country is a true democracy.

There hasn't been true democracy in hundreds of years, so I find it suspect whenever people suggest it can quickly slide into tyranny. Republics can slide into tyranny, of course, and this has been observed to happen.

Of course, the ideal government is the smartest individuals forming a ruling council. Like several others, I never saw the problem with this form of elitism. Do you want to be ruled by the guy who can figure out how to solve the problems, or by the guy who ate paste through fifth grade?

I disagree with this. I don't think that any one system by itself is ideal--this system may have advantages but they rely on the perfect motivations of these people, and then on the perfection motivations of the people who replace them and on down the line. I think that the only "ideal" government that can really be considered is a workable one--anything else can't be called ideal because it's unworkable. It's just a utopian fantasy if it can't be put in place, and that's what such a government relying on good nature is.

Ideal, then, would be to balance out various powers--democratic rights with certain checks. One possible check is in fact a body which represents successful people measured by some reasonably if not perfectly, but acceptable unimpeachable standard.

Anything with is stagnant is, of course, destined for the rubbish heap, I'll agree there, but I can find few flaws with rule by the wise. The biggest is that they will have personal agendas.. But I am sure things can be arranged so that the success of the State is inexorably tied to the success of it's ruling council(Or should that be worded the other way round? No matter).

Simply placing the successful at the top doesn't help matters; the methods by which they came to success may have been by forcing negative things on others(See any kind of unregulated sweatshops). However, relying on the most intelligent produces a number of advantages. There are negative sides, but checks and balances can be crafted with time and effort. Perhaps some democratic methods can be retained(Perhaps, for example, merely requiring those running for an office to demonstrate competency or excellence in the fields required; this, of course, would make running for President a difficult task), to ensure that the common people aren't promptly handed the shaft.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

We need to get rid of something that we are already paying for? I've been paying Social Security since I was 15 and I am entitled to the benefits when I get older. If you want to replace it or refund everyones money fine, but don't you see the problem with closing down a program that some people have been dumping money into their entire lives?

No. I'd probably make the cutoff date.. Hrmm... We'll call it fourty. Maybe fourty-five if the money is real tight by the time we cut it off. That means that the average person was expecting twenty to twenty-five years more work before they cashed in already. Everyone over that age still collects.

You do realize that when (it's a when not an if) that social security collapses that you will lose all the money you put into it? You will get nothing from it. Moreover, if you are of about the average age on this board, I guarantee that you will never see a single penny of your social security money. I have my retirement planned without a single penny of it in mind, I can assure you that.

All of that money will go bye-bye and we're the ones who will lose out. The children of our generation? Who knows what they will have.

Think of it like investing in the stock market. When you're in a losing situation, better to cash out while you can still minizing your losses than waiting to crash and burn. That's what we have to do with social security, okay?

Because Social Security is organized like a Ponzi Scheme, and not even the Federal Government can keep a Ponzi Scheme going forever.

Sorry, but you were being taxed to support your elders, and the government discontinued that service. Tough luck, but if you want that sort of service, elect politicians who will come up with something sensible to replace it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

How the heck does a worker benefit from being paid less than he deserves??

How do you deserve the minimum wage for picking crops? The current wages have been established through market forces; they may in fact go up a bit if everything were over the table, and even a small increase would vastly help these people. The main benefit would be in improved conditions through the legalization of the work area however. But, seriously, it would be impossible to sustain the agricultural industry with workers who got the vastly extravagant minimum wage. OTOH, these people are obviously not starving to death--in fact, they're crossing the border in droves to get these less-than-minimum-wage jobs, so why not let them have them legally?

When corporations are allowed to pay their employees as little as they can get away with, it's pretty obvious that the ones enjoying such a lack of minimum wage are not the workers, but the corporate leaders whose profits are increased by a wage reduction.

And this is disproven by the fact that minimum wage jobs in the USA are relatively rare and primarily in the service industry (in terms of types, not overall quantity I grant). Employers give their employees more money because it makes them more productive to do so, and this compensates for the money they give them--profit is not an equation of just money saved, but also productivity and other factors, and right now we're losing out in productivity. The minimum wage is entirely artificial and eliminating it would allow less than minimum wage jobs to fit the needs of fields which simply can't sustain the minimum wage, without affecting (or even allowing for some pay-raises in) job fields that are above the minimum wage.

Obviously, such a decision would be vastly enjoyed by corporate bosses and capitalists who have no qualms about using morally and environmentally questionable methods to maximize profits.

Yes, and thank god for it, since "morally and enviromentally questionable" in this case = We've been regulating industries to death and unions have simply become the flip side of big business (look at a union leader and you can't tell them apart from a corporate boss). But I'm not even proposing eliminating unions, no, never suggested that. They'd still be a check. I just want to audit the system and eliminate all the regulation possible. Regulation is, after all, added through a political process and I contend there is much in there which is quite reasonably unnecessary.

Such as?

See later debate.

[Symmetry]

The alternative to a democracy is not automatically a dictatorship. Remarkably, there is a whole spectrum of ways of running things, and it does not go from 'democracy' to 'dictatorship' instantly.

I agree completly with that, but no matter what system we choose, we always seem to find people who we don't like running things.

Of course, the ideal government is the smartest individuals forming a ruling council. Like several others, I never saw the problem with this form of elitism. Do you want to be ruled by the guy who can figure out how to solve the problems, or by the guy who ate paste through fifth grade?

Isn't that seriously begging the question? I agree that it would be best if we had the most qualified people running the country, but every system of government, from "divine right of kings" to democracy is supposed to be a way of putting the best people in charge.

[Peregrin Toker]

How the heck does a worker benefit from being paid less than he deserves??

How do you deserve the minimum wage for picking crops?

Well, legally speaking, you deserve the minimum wage for it because technically picking crops is a job.

The current wages have been established through market forces; they may in fact go up a bit if everything were over the table, and even a small increase would vastly help these people. The main benefit would be in improved conditions through the legalization of the work area however.

But, seriously, it would be impossible to sustain the agricultural industry with workers who got the vastly extravagant minimum wage.

To be honest I don't know that much about US economy - what is the minimum wage in USA? The whole argument is becoming kinda moot since I don't know what it is, but I do know that a lot of fastfood joint waiters are being paid wages grossly under the minimum.

OTOH, these people are obviously not starving to death--in fact, they're crossing the border in droves to get these less-than-minimum-wage jobs, so why not let them have them legally?

They're only crossing the border to get these less-than-minimum wage jobs because it's the only jobs they're being offered. Also - if they knew about the minimum wage and the fact that they were being paid less than required, they'd demand it. Mexicans are not as naive as you'd like to think.

And this is disproven by the fact that minimum wage jobs in the USA are relatively rare and primarily in the service industry (in terms of types, not overall quantity I grant).

A small problem is still a problem.

Employers give their employees more money because it makes them more productive to do so, and this compensates for the money they give them--profit is not an equation of just money saved, but also productivity and other factors, and right now we're losing out in productivity.

How does this explain why clerks and other low-ranking employees are being paid with as low wages as the employer can get away with?

Obviously, if it was like you claim, there would not be one intelligent businessman paying his employees barely-existant wages.

The minimum wage is entirely artificial and eliminating it would allow less than minimum wage jobs to fit the needs of fields which simply can't sustain the minimum wage, without affecting (or even allowing for some pay-raises in) job fields that are above the minimum wage.

The fact that some fields need less-than-minimum wages simply prove my previous statement that employers pay their workers as little as possible, whenever possible.

We've been regulating industries to death and unions have simply become the flip side of big business (look at a union leader and you can't tell them apart from a corporate boss).

There's a difference between looking like a rich man and being a rich man. Ever known somebody who bought an used luxury car in order to appear richer than he actually was?

But I'm not even proposing eliminating unions, no, never suggested that. They'd still be a check. I just want to audit the system and eliminate all the regulation possible.

But isn't it, for that matter, possible to eliminate unions?