Neither are good really, but socialism and capitalism are basically ideals that encompass all others and/or their ideals (if, and only if, used as a political basis.) In a monarchy one person had power and uses it as fairly, or unfairly as they deem. In other systems people choose what they want but neglect those below them.
Socialism and capitalism are the amalgamation of all human efforts to maintain peace and happiness in society. However they do nothing but put things in specific terms.
Frankly neither of these systems are good systems, neither will or can be. The middle ground is all we can hope for, but it will be the same, merely more efficient.
Why do people always assume that the middle ground is best? I for one believe in what Thomas Paine said "A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice."
I can see how some people think an extreme is bad, and I can understand your rejection of the middle ground.
Personally, I believe in a middle ground between one extreme and the middle ground. Rather, a 1/4 degree distinction between one extreme and the other.
I simply don't see a system besides the two that a modern human would agree to. Since they are the most widely used and liked governments must use one of the two. At the same time they are the most flawed, so a middle ground combining the best bits of both (which IS possible) is the best choice.
I think there should be no laws or regulations other than, "do no unjust harm to others". If you feel you've been wronged in any way, you bring charges against another individual and a judge and jury decide if the actions taken by that other individual were justified and if not, what an appropriate punishment is. Everything would be public and would naturally moderate itself. We would have to start by making a greater emphasis in schools on developing people's moral intelligence. Not telling them what is right and wrong, but teaching them how to decide what is right and wrong.
The problem as I see it is simple. Without the support and participation of the people under it, NO goverment system can function fully.
Now consider that where you have two people, you have two points of view. No system can make everyone happy. No system will be supported by the full populace at large. If it could be there would hardly be a need for a government.
The best we can do is put some system together that works well enough for most of the people most of the time. Mediocracy is the ideal here. It's simply the best you can get in a government because it has to span many confilcting viewpoints. THAT'S why, in this case, middle ground is the best. Please note we already ARE excercising a middle ground as it is. Where the correct balance-point sits is the question and that's something that is different for every nation and should probably be re-evaluated from time to time.
The U.S. government was designed to be continuously evaluated and updated. That's what the deal is with all these laws that are being made and changed all the time. Neat idea, huh? In fact, this is pretty common to all good government systems that I know of. The problem comes in when you go back to the beginning of this post: "Without the support and participation of the people under it, NO goverment system can function fully."
If we as a people stop supporting and cooperating with this system, the obvious result is anarchy. The government fails.
That said, most good governments have police forces that can force cooperation to a degree. This can make a complete government change-out very difficult and undesireable since it would require violence and rebellion. Nasty business that. As such, the best government is an adaptive one. One that can peacefully change (but not irreversably).
Ok, that's enough now. I got carried away with this.
Now consider that where you have two people, you have two points of view. No system can make everyone happy. No system will be supported by the full populace at large. If it could be there would hardly be a need for a government.
The best we can do is put some system together that works well enough for most of the people most of the time. Mediocracy is the ideal here. It's simply the best you can get in a government because it has to span many confilcting viewpoints. THAT'S why, in this case, middle ground is the best.
I disagree. I think the most logical thing to do would be to implement a system the LEAST invasive, the smallest possible, with the least intervention of people's lives. The smaller the system, the less reasons a person can have to disagree with it. A bit like what our good friend Behemoth said, except you need a tad little more regulation than "do no unjust harm to others".
This. Welcome to middle-ground land. When I speak of middle-ground I speak very broadly*. Behemoth's comment sounds good in a society where everyone mostly agrees on what all constitutes "harm" and what all constitutes "unjust", but this is obviously not going to happen. It's just not that simple. There are issues this doesn't cover. Things like roads. Who's responsible for building and maintaining them? Who enforces this one law? There's more to government than a judicial system.
In actual practice this minimalism would not work outside of a small community.
Hence, the middle ground. You need to define how much a "tad little more" is. You need to say how "middle" you feel you need to go. It's a balance.
It might land very close to one end over the other, but you ultimately will not be able to sit at an extreme and expect it to work well.
My opinion is that I agree with you about having a less invasive government. A smaller, less invasive government is more capable of changing to fit the current situation. Unfortunately, there is only so far you can go and still have things work. That's all I'm getting at. Less is good, but least is too far. The government would become useless in matters of disaster.
*I'm seeing the middle as a very large area:
(left)(
middle
)(right)
EDIT: Behemoth's society sounds like a town out of an old western show. It might be fun to dress up as cowboys and travel about a mostly lawless land, huh?
Why do people always assume that the middle ground is best? I for one believe in what Thomas Paine said "A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice."
This post will only feed the fire, so please don't yell at the philosophers without the presence of strong feelings or data. Now, let me present: Industrial Revolution Philosophers.
CAPITALISTIC Industrial Revolution Thinkers
Adam Smith: Law of Self-Interest: People work for own good; Law of Competition: Competition forces people into making better product
Thomas Malthus: Population tends to increase more rapidly than food supply. Without war and disease, to kill off those who cannot defend themselves from them, because of monetary or mental/physical problems.
David Ricardo: Market causes poor to remain poor, and die off. Natural Selection picks only those fit for survival, ie the richest.
UTILITARIANISTIC Industrial Revolution Thinkers
Jeremy Bentham: people should judge companies and products based on usefulness.Governemt works for greater good of majority of people.
John Stuart Mill: All workers should receive good wages and benefits. This should be enforced by government.
UTOPIAN Industrial Revolution thinkers
Robert Owen: Built model community called New Harmony in Indiana. Believed in low rate house rental and good working wages.
SOCIALISTIC Industrial Revolution Thinkers
Charles Fourier: All humans are good-natured. Extension of right to vote would allow power to people and workers.
Karl Marx/Robert Engels: Human Soceity divided into warring classes, the "Haves" and the "Have-Nots". The conflict would result in the numbers of the middle and lower class to over take the upper class. This would lead to a dictatorship of the people, true Communism (Radical Socialism)
wtf this came out of freaking nowhere. Vermont's been in the news over the last month dealing with protests and threats of veto from the governor over the issue.
And then Iowa comes along, oh hai guyz we legalized it.
This is a good thing. I'm proud of my now less crappy state.
I'd like to see a state just totally start disregarding all marriages. Seems to me that marriage should be a contract between two individuals. It should NOT be a contract between two individuals and a government.
SAN FRANCISCO - Apple on Tuesday changed its trademark standard of charging 99 cents per song at online shop iTunes in a deal with recording studios that strips anti-piracy software from digital downloads.
Songs now sell for 69 cents, 99 cents or 1.29 dollars with studios deciding pricing.
Music studios have long lobbied Apple to charge more for songs at iTunes.
The California maker of iPods, iPhones and Macintosh computers had steadfastly maintained a 99-cents-per-song price structure at iTunes since it launched the online music and movie shop in 2003.
"Apple really was trying to keep the pricing structure very simple, and the guy that had the stature and the power to push back on the recording industry was Steve Jobs," said analyst Rob Enderle of Enderle Group in Silicon Valley.
"I think this is indicative of him not being there, and Apple not having the power it once had. Quite frankly, recording industry executives were scared to death of Steve."
Apple chief Jobs, a 54-year-old cancer survivor, is taking a medical leave of absence because of "complex" health issues.
Apple vice president of worldwide marketing Phil Schiller filled in for Jobs in January at a Macworld Expo in San Francisco, heralding the new iTunes prices during a keynote speech.
"To start coming up with complex pricing schemes, you are going to have problems," Enderle said. "An advantage of iTunes was one price for everything."
Apple evidently made the pricing concession in exchange for studios backing off demands for digital rights management (DRM) software that prevents music from being copied.
Schiller promised that all songs in the iTunes library would be available DRM-free by this month.
This is the healthy skeptic in me, but how many songs are actually going to be 69 cents? And when has the music industry ever really cared about its customers more than its money? The business plan of the music industry had been backwards for years, and they fought the change in technology by suing young adults instead of adapting. They only really changed when Apple did the work for them and created iTunes.
If you are a fan of old, obscure music, then this is probably good news for you. If you like newer music I can't imagine you're going to paying 69 cents for your favorite songs.
The music industry is pushing this because their market research suggests it'll be more profitable for them. Don't forget that.
During his captivity, US marines forced Saddam, who was executed in 2006, to repeatedly watch the movie South Park: Bigger, Longer And Uncut, which shows him as gay, as well as the boyfriend of Satan. He was also regularly depicted in a similar manner during the TV series.
The admission comes with the show's 13th season already running in the US. It will celebrate its 12th anniversary later this year.
The show, which satirises a wide range of topics, including religion, sexuality and mental illness, has won a number of awards including three Emmys for Outstanding Animated Programme.
Recent episodes have seen Barack Obama using his Presidential victory as a way to steal jewels from Washington in an Oceans 11-style heist.
It also recently depicted the United States Treasury as deciding economic measures by cutting the head off a chicken and letting it run on a game show style board, landing on a decision.
Stone, 37, said both he and Parker, 39, were most proud of the signed Saddam photo, given to them by the US Army's 4th Infantry Division.
He said: "We're very proud of our signed Saddam picture and what it means. Its one of our biggest highlights.
"I have it on pretty good information from the marines on detail in Iraq that they showed Saddam the movie.
"Over and over again – which is a pretty funny thought.
Honestly I found the situation pretty distasteful. Thanks Matt and Trey for condoning torture of POWs! Granted, there are worse things to watch than the South Park movie, but isn't being forced to watch a movie that depicts you sodomizing Satan over and over again considered torture by anybody else?
Comments
Socialism and capitalism are the amalgamation of all human efforts to maintain peace and happiness in society. However they do nothing but put things in specific terms.
Frankly neither of these systems are good systems, neither will or can be. The middle ground is all we can hope for, but it will be the same, merely more efficient.
Personally, I believe in a middle ground between one extreme and the middle ground. Rather, a 1/4 degree distinction between one extreme and the other.
Now consider that where you have two people, you have two points of view. No system can make everyone happy. No system will be supported by the full populace at large. If it could be there would hardly be a need for a government.
The best we can do is put some system together that works well enough for most of the people most of the time. Mediocracy is the ideal here. It's simply the best you can get in a government because it has to span many confilcting viewpoints. THAT'S why, in this case, middle ground is the best. Please note we already ARE excercising a middle ground as it is. Where the correct balance-point sits is the question and that's something that is different for every nation and should probably be re-evaluated from time to time.
The U.S. government was designed to be continuously evaluated and updated. That's what the deal is with all these laws that are being made and changed all the time. Neat idea, huh? In fact, this is pretty common to all good government systems that I know of. The problem comes in when you go back to the beginning of this post: "Without the support and participation of the people under it, NO goverment system can function fully."
If we as a people stop supporting and cooperating with this system, the obvious result is anarchy. The government fails.
That said, most good governments have police forces that can force cooperation to a degree. This can make a complete government change-out very difficult and undesireable since it would require violence and rebellion. Nasty business that. As such, the best government is an adaptive one. One that can peacefully change (but not irreversably).
Ok, that's enough now. I got carried away with this.
I disagree. I think the most logical thing to do would be to implement a system the LEAST invasive, the smallest possible, with the least intervention of people's lives. The smaller the system, the less reasons a person can have to disagree with it. A bit like what our good friend Behemoth said, except you need a tad little more regulation than "do no unjust harm to others".
This. Welcome to middle-ground land. When I speak of middle-ground I speak very broadly*. Behemoth's comment sounds good in a society where everyone mostly agrees on what all constitutes "harm" and what all constitutes "unjust", but this is obviously not going to happen. It's just not that simple. There are issues this doesn't cover. Things like roads. Who's responsible for building and maintaining them? Who enforces this one law? There's more to government than a judicial system.
In actual practice this minimalism would not work outside of a small community.
Hence, the middle ground. You need to define how much a "tad little more" is. You need to say how "middle" you feel you need to go. It's a balance.
It might land very close to one end over the other, but you ultimately will not be able to sit at an extreme and expect it to work well.
My opinion is that I agree with you about having a less invasive government. A smaller, less invasive government is more capable of changing to fit the current situation. Unfortunately, there is only so far you can go and still have things work. That's all I'm getting at. Less is good, but least is too far. The government would become useless in matters of disaster.
*I'm seeing the middle as a very large area:
(left)(
middle
)(right)
EDIT: Behemoth's society sounds like a town out of an old western show. It might be fun to dress up as cowboys and travel about a mostly lawless land, huh?
This post will only feed the fire, so please don't yell at the philosophers without the presence of strong feelings or data. Now, let me present: Industrial Revolution Philosophers.
CAPITALISTIC Industrial Revolution Thinkers
Adam Smith: Law of Self-Interest: People work for own good; Law of Competition: Competition forces people into making better product
Thomas Malthus: Population tends to increase more rapidly than food supply. Without war and disease, to kill off those who cannot defend themselves from them, because of monetary or mental/physical problems.
David Ricardo: Market causes poor to remain poor, and die off. Natural Selection picks only those fit for survival, ie the richest.
UTILITARIANISTIC Industrial Revolution Thinkers
Jeremy Bentham: people should judge companies and products based on usefulness.Governemt works for greater good of majority of people.
John Stuart Mill: All workers should receive good wages and benefits. This should be enforced by government.
UTOPIAN Industrial Revolution thinkers
Robert Owen: Built model community called New Harmony in Indiana. Believed in low rate house rental and good working wages.
SOCIALISTIC Industrial Revolution Thinkers
Charles Fourier: All humans are good-natured. Extension of right to vote would allow power to people and workers.
Karl Marx/Robert Engels: Human Soceity divided into warring classes, the "Haves" and the "Have-Nots". The conflict would result in the numbers of the middle and lower class to over take the upper class. This would lead to a dictatorship of the people, true Communism (Radical Socialism)
ohhhh welllll.
And then Iowa comes along, oh hai guyz we legalized it.
This is a good thing. I'm proud of my now less crappy state.
If you are a fan of old, obscure music, then this is probably good news for you. If you like newer music I can't imagine you're going to paying 69 cents for your favorite songs.
The music industry is pushing this because their market research suggests it'll be more profitable for them. Don't forget that.
That is a really awesome news article.
Yeah, you like that, don't you bitch
Best fucking president ever.