A new political system: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » A new political system » A new political system

A new political system
Some Ideas on a better political system.

Page: 1 2

A new political system

Outlaw
Born to Kill

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2007
Location: Earth
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 63

Posted 04/30/07 - 09:00 AM:	#26
Ultimately, though, we'll never know if any of these things will work until we try them. We can see that Communism didn't work in Russia, and that its status in China and Cuba is tenuous, at best. We can also see that anarchy leads to totalitarianism, which itself leads to revolution (with a new state of anarchy one of the likely results). That's why I advocate (as above) a process of slow changes without a bias towards any specific political system. This will likely result in an entirely new kind of system that will itself be reformed into a new system. While I don't think this process will have any end result, I believe it will move us in a direction towards something resembling anarchy. However, unlike the anarchies thrust upon various unprepared peoples of the world in times before, this will be an anarchy-like system that we have culturally evolved into. And that, I believe, is key. When people who believe in authority have anarchy thrust upon them, they embrace totalitarianism. But when the change is almost imperceptibly slow, there is no fear to lead us into the arms of tyrants.
_____________________ "Every law is an infraction of liberty." --Jeremy Bentham

Alekhine
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2007
Location: Over the Line
Total Topics: 25
Total Posts: 459

Posted 04/30/07 - 09:25 AM:	#27
That type of slow change is extremely impractical in any system. There are too many changes in the make-up of government that any slow changes started would eventually be stopped by the next in line. America is a perfect example of how these changes would be blocked. However, after the American Revolution they could have effectively established an anarchy. It would have worked because of the state of the world at that point.
_____________________ Meh

Outlaw
Born to Kill

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2007
Location: Earth
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 63

Posted 04/30/07 - 11:48 AM:	#28
Alekhine wrote: That type of slow change is extremely impractical in any system. I don't think you understand what I am proposing. By slow change, I don't mean glacial. Obviously, any change is "sudden" insofar as it takes effect in a moment. But what I mean is that maybe next year we start reforming the election process by passing a bill. Then maybe the year after we reform it further. This is how American democracy has evolved throughout the past, so it is patently false that such a thing is impossible. How else did the various Amendments following the Bill of Rights get passed, after all? The only difference I am proposing is that we keep in mind that all of the features of the current system are up for grabs--all questions are open, nothing is sacrosanct. Alekhine wrote: [A]fter the American Revolution they could have effectively established an anarchy. It would have worked because of the state of the world at that point. History would disagree. The government under the Articles of Confederation wasn't strong enough to prevent the various types of chaos that typically lead to a reassertion of absolute central control. It makes no sense to think an even weaker government would have fared better--particularly with the British monarchy still seeking to take control once again (indeed, the war of 1812 may have been the end were it not for the Federal system established by the Constitution).
_____________________ "Every law is an infraction of liberty." --Jeremy Bentham

vzzbux
Professional Skeptic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2007
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 69

Posted 05/04/07 - 07:44 PM: Subject: Human Nature	#29
I have been reading about morailty and rules. Everyone knows the golden rule- do unto others as they do unto you.Then theirs the Ghandian silver rule- do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you. Then there's the Brazen or Tit for Tat Rule- Do unto others as they do unto you The Tit for Tat rule is the one most modeled in human behaviour There is a quote, "There are two ways to spread light, be a candle, or the mirror that reflects it." People are naturally inclined to be mirrors so al we need to do is have a larger percentage of the population follow the golden rule (or at least the silver rule) and be candles. This will make the people more moral and make them less likely to be corrupt thus helping to solve our problems.
_____________________ Dogbert- "The skeptics think that a company aerobics program won't work. Let's see who's right." Dilbert- "The skeptics were right" Dogert- "We usually are"

Archibald Hobbes
Endowed Chair

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 22

Posted 04/20/08 - 02:06 AM:	#30
Your discussion on morality is promising: more people should be candles, than mirrors. Let us take this a step further. Rather than a majority of the posts, I am not going to push for a Marxist revolution, nor am I going to push for some "liberal" parliamentarist nonsense where all of our votes should count. Instead, it becomes abundantly clear to anyone who has ever uttered the words "human condition" that there is a "human condition" and it is, at best complicated, at worst (and most commonly) evil. Three conclusions are drawn then: First, the Marxian dialectic is a very fantastic idea, and would be wonderful if it could be realized. As a ex-Marxist, it became disheartening to look at our world as no longer class based, and simply perverted to where some people do not even care about their own neighborhoods. The class unity that was so essential to Marxism has shown time and time again to be too weak to handle the mechanization of the statepower of the capitalist swine. Moreover, people themselves tend to be vain creatures and are hardly willing (now, more than ever) to cooperate even when it is SHOWN TO THEM to be in their "best interest" to do so. Thankfully, the Hegelian dialectic is inevitable, and with it Marx's revolution, so no matter what happens now, it will eventually happen later anyway. So, until then, I am going to push for something else. Secondly, that “something else” reveals itself as the modern "liberalism" of our day. This is utterly deficient and something that needs to be avoided at all costs. If the crisis of modernity has shown us anything, it is that the Enlightenment has given us nothing but lemons. The ability to say that it is the corporations fault we are corrupt, or that our government serves their interests, is simply the ability to state facts. Therefore, oddly, these same people turn around and say that our unhindered vote in the parliamentary system (the same one run by the business and private interests of the elite) would solve our problems. Maybe, if you would stop to think, you "liberals," you would realize that the SYSTEM itself is wrong in a number of ways, first in the primacy of corporations in our life even outside the "political," and the devaluation of Enlightened truth. The second point first. Let us all sit around and talk about the goal of man. Actually, let us all sit around and talk about OUR goals as human beings, as citizens, etc. Are we going to agree? Hell no. But, wait, isn't the point of debate to come to a consensus? On what? On our opinions on humanity, on the state, on OURSELVES? How is that possible? It isn't. Therefore, we stand on the one side defending our right to say everything about anything, yet won't believe a word. And, standing on the other side, we want to reach a "consensus," a "truth," a "meaning," a "rationality" in politics without infringing on everyone's ability to do and say whatever they want. Is it any wonder that we can never solve anything? Congress never solves anything because you won't let ANYONE solve ANYTHING because there is NOTHING that can be SOLVED! What the hell good is a anonymous vote going to do, aside from safe face about something that you might not have otherwise voted a particular way on? Nothing. It will force others to vote to disagree or agree with you, but that's all we can hope for: a 50.000001 to 49.9999999 LANDSLIDE VICTORY, which, of course as always, is temporary. The loss of truth has made us not care about things, unless we are radicals, and then we care about nothing outside of our fanaticism. Therefore, the only things we can accomplish in the temporary timespan are things that can happen in the here-and-now of a controversial bill: economics and ethics. Ethics is simply how we should frame the debate, which is usually legally (rights-based). Where do these "rights" come from? Who the hell knows or cares, as long as it lets me do what I want! Moreover, the use of rights is simply a tool of obscuring and suppressing what is truly trying to be argued: truth. Therefore what can and cannot be done are under legal frameworks, which, while they may be static for the most part, are fundamentally predicated on being enacted by some sovereign force (picture martial law in colonial history, or even the Patriot Acts in recent memory). The only thing left then is the economic. Unfortunately, the economic is decisively NONPOLITICAL. The most important decisions of your here-and-now, truthless, meaningless life, are to be made in the boardrooms of corporations that dwarf many developing countries. It is no wonder that everything has become economic: we have no public truth, hence no public discourse. The only truth we have is private, and therefore our entire lives are pushed inward, where the only thing that matters is existence. The here-and-now existence is the playground of the elites and corporations. All of which is NONPOLITICAL. The conclusion drawn here is that the NONPOLITICAL cannot be solved by a POLITICAL system, especially a liberal one where we can still insert our corrupting, private interests. The second you think of yourself is the very second you become NONPOLITICAL. Voting on economic issues, is simply no place for the government, for the POLITICAL. Instead, let us remove the idea that we all are equal, or that we should all be equal economically, in the here-and-now. Removing this will put less pressure on ourselves to act righteously, which is inherently against our human nature to begin with. The final conclusion is then this: reinstate the political of the political system. What does that mean, though!? What does political mean, if not voting, or rights, or liberalism, or Marxism, etc? We must return to human nature: what is it that we most desperately want!? What drives us? There are two answers here that are possible: one, we want security, or two, we are naturally drawn together. For those “moderns,” we are forced together because we want our security, and therefore THAT becomes the POLITICAL. Taking a page from Hobbes, it is the fear of everyone against everyone that makes us so afraid that we will give up everything to stay alive. The security of the people is the morality of the state, and this is in defending our friends, and killing our enemies. It is not, however, liberal or democratic, and it need not be. The killing of all of our enemies is the best thing for us, and it matters not how we get there, just so long as they are killed. Moreover, this issue of killing enemies is something that needs to be discussed, and therefore cannot be made into a category like economics or ethics. Our enemy, who wants to kill us, need not be the same group of people that are our economic opponents, or our ideological counterweights. However, by ignoring the role of the state, and the political, we cannot help but be defenseless against everyone who wishes us harm, and morally bankrupt and always striving for meaning in a world where we constantly ignore all means towards meaning. For the “ancients,” we are naturally inclined to form communities, and therefore it is a natural occurrence of harmony and prosperity. This forces us to reflect on ourselves, and to realize that we have a common ground, a nature that can be harnessed and brought forth for observation. This nature bestows meaning, and prescribes social order. We need to drop the framework of liberal laws, and start anew. Where do rights come from? What is the Good? Answering these questions are fundamental to human life, and therefore exponentially more important for social life. Social life, the city, is the highest form of perfection for man, and therefore must be examined. Truth must return to our lives, and this becomes the political. The new government seems to then be a radical departure from the nonsense of the Enlightenment, from Liberalism (including Marxism, which is just more “scientific” liberalism). The new government we seek is achieved by the reemergence of the POLITICAL, which happens two ways: by putting the state ABOVE society, or by reintroducing truth to man’s being. This is how we will become better people. PS: And do not give me that old Enlightenment objection of: “Well, your truth might not be someone else’s definition of truth.” To that, I respond, that they do not know what truth is. Edited by Archibald Hobbes on 04/21/08 - 07:10 PM

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 1941

Posted 04/20/08 - 03:02 PM:	#31
Bakunin predicted that the Marxists would only replace one tyrant with another and he was correct. The problem with modern government is that it is not the instrument of the people so much as an instrument of the rich and powerful. This is an untenable model for government in the long term and will eventually collapse in catastrophy as the will of the people becomes more and more oppressed as the government caters to the whims of power and wealth. There is a limit to what people will put up with and while we think we are a long way from that it would be good to remember that the Soviet Union collapsed in a matter of weeks.

litkey
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 718

Posted 04/21/08 - 02:25 AM:	#32
vzzbux wrote: I think that we need a new political system developed. We need to develop a new system that will respect the people's will but takes out the corruption. We need to find away from separating Corporations from Government or else government becomes another corporation. We also need a stable system that would function in the Middle East. Another system that focuses on keeping peace would be nice. And if we could get a wayto solve the energy crisis that might be nice. I'm looking for some new governments. Any Ideas? Before you start looking for new governments you need to start with some principles. People when they are placed in contexts without principles can act and do unspeakable things. For example, only this weekend I did something terrible. I bought 8 cans of Kronenberg from a shop that is more expensive than my local shop. So- principles need laying down. Once you have the principles then you can have your actors come onto the screen. I would recommend you read Rawls, Nozick, - and if you want to look at the history - Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Montesque, Rousseau, Voltaire, Arnold Shwartzeenieger (sp??),
_____________________ Develop an interest in life as you see it; the people, things, literature, music - the world is so rich, simply throbbing with rich treasures, beautiful souls and interesting people. Forget yourself. - The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

rakis
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 61

Posted 04/21/08 - 07:31 AM:	#33
litkey, I think that the philosophers you've just suggested take us before Marx, and I insist that a social analysis without emphasizing the production of surplus value cannot see the cause of antagonism in contemporary capitalistic societies.

litkey
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 718

Posted 04/21/08 - 08:10 AM:	#34
rakis wrote: litkey, I think that the philosophers you've just suggested take us before Marx, and I insist that a social analysis without emphasizing the production of surplus value cannot see the cause of antagonism in contemporary capitalistic societies. Rawls and Nozick could be seen at the polar ends of the political spectrum; some have labelled Rawls a socialist, and others label Nozick a right wing libertarian: although I would see many paralells between the two, for example, they both try to address the problem of unfairness in the distribution of goods. Antagonism - where do you see the antagonism?
_____________________ Develop an interest in life as you see it; the people, things, literature, music - the world is so rich, simply throbbing with rich treasures, beautiful souls and interesting people. Forget yourself. - The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

JjPregler
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 26, 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 273

Posted 04/21/08 - 03:31 PM:	#35
I think this thread has somehow gone off target. The OP asked about a governmental system change which evolved into a debate on Marxism and Capitalism. To me the two are seperate. Marxism and Capitalism are often related as a government, but in reality they are econimic theories in my mind. A political system relates to who is in charge and how decisions are made. A marxist economy can be run in a democracy or monarchy. Basically the choices for who can run the government run from all, some, one or none. The US is not a democratic government. It is a republic of democratically elected representatives. A true democracy would have every citizen voting on every issue. In most forms of government, the ruling class is always influenced by money and power. In Plato's Republic, he understood this and therefore limited the amount of wealth the ruling class could obtain. Imagine a Senator living on only $30,000 and not being allowed to accept any money or gifts whatsoever above his/her income and only allowed to serve one term. Election funding is only to be distributed from a government fund and every candidate gets equal amounts at set times. This way decisions will be based on what is really right or wrong and not in any way influenced by promises of money or votes.

freeyourdome
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 6

Posted 04/21/08 - 04:35 PM:	#36
Communism does not work, period. Communism discourages creativity and inhibits the active man. It is a bad form of government. It's actually pretty simple.

Archibald Hobbes
Endowed Chair

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 22

Posted 04/21/08 - 07:20 PM: Subject: Capitalist Apologists Make Me Laugh	#37
Capitalism doesn't work just as much as Communism fails to bolster creativity and the active man. How creative is a man that fails over and over again, just because you try your entire life doesn't mean your life was a success. There is no relationship between creativity and economic success to begin with, in fact. The most successful capitalists were the most amoral, unethical thieves! Actually, to be successful in a capitalist society, it could be held that one indeed needs to be NON-CREATIVE, because this pushes man to steal! About the second "active" man, need I point out the flabbery of the elite? What is active about owning stock and watching a computer screen? Nothing. Capitalism actually creates inactive man. Why do work when you can have someone else do it for you? The goal of capitalism is to BECOME inactive! At least communism answers this question with a moral objection: "Why do I have to work? Because I can only have everything if I do my share." --------- I agree, though, the topic of this board has gone far from its intentions. Let's return to the best way to "remove" "corporations" from "distorting" "our" "democratic" "will."

litkey
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 718

Posted 04/22/08 - 02:23 AM:	#38
Man is only creative in adversity, simple.
_____________________ Develop an interest in life as you see it; the people, things, literature, music - the world is so rich, simply throbbing with rich treasures, beautiful souls and interesting people. Forget yourself. - The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

DarkHorse
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 14, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 36

Posted 04/23/08 - 02:14 PM:	#39
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."--Winston Churchill Perhaps, then, neither of these forms are perfect. Most will agree that democracy, at least, is currently more effective. "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” Winston Churchill What we really need to do, then, is to try some other forms. Unfortunately, we can't seem to think of any.
_____________________ History is the only laboratory we have in which to test the consequences of thought.--Etienne Gilson

Archibald Hobbes
Endowed Chair

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 22

Posted 04/24/08 - 01:07 AM:	#40
"I am always ready to learn although I do not always like being taught." - Winston Churchill Maybe it is time for us to talk about these things, to learn about these things. Instead of assuming that we already know and close the discussion with statements that end with "simple."

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 1941

Posted 04/25/08 - 04:04 PM:	#41
The problem as I see it has to do with information. People are not informed or so misinformed that they are unable to form opinions so they just don't care about anything beyond their own sphere of activity. This is all part of a deliberate operation to isolate the individual so that things like class can no longer have any bearing on opinion, or voting. The ideal of republican democracy has been completely undermined by control of the media outlets through which the vast majority get their misinformation and from that form their faulty opinions or just give up on the whole thing and hunker down.

sirensiren
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 04/30/08 - 01:12 AM:	#42
perseus wrote: It’s difficult to have a non-corrupt government in a society that is inherently corrupt. The state must fund political parties, never individuals or businesses to avoid conflicts of interest The financial funds allocated to parties and the number of news print area, poster room or air time given by the media should be a function of the popular vote Individuals in a position of power must also waver their right to subsequent financial award from businesses in future years and their income stream must be closely monitored to ensure this. Perhaps they should be committed to work within the public sector for life. All those in a position of power must occasionally be tested for corruptibility (for example a fake bribe). Failure in this test renders them unsuitable to hold positions of power or responsibility. Peerages and similar non-financial awards and positions awarded by non-democratic means should be abolished Every vote in a parliament should be free and anonymous, uninfluenced by party interests. The power acquired via the popular vote should be representative of it in some way (so parties of similar beliefs don't neutralise one another and allow a minority to dominate) People without a fixed address should be allowed to vote This is my first post but I find this forum very interesting. To your first point - What happens when the state itself becomes corrupt? The distribution of funds to parties becomes corrupt. Furthermore, where does the state get their money to fund parties? Most likely from taxing the people. Will people become angry when portions of their taxes are going to parties they do not support? If you say that one can choose which party their taxes go to, we are just back where we started with free will of funding parties. Now, if you argue that that there should be corruption tests, how do you determine those who administer the tests are not corrupt? Corruption inevitably creeps in this system. To your second point - If media power is a function of the popular vote, would that eventually lead to one party? If the initial party starts to allocate all media power, eventually that is the only party the public will hear about, thus becoming the only party in existence. If you are talking about an inverse function, where parties with less of the popular vote get more media coverage, well I don't really know how to respond to that. Just a few thoughts I had.

sirensiren
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 04/30/08 - 01:20 AM:	#43
Archibald Hobbes wrote: "I am always ready to learn although I do not always like being taught." - Winston Churchill Maybe it is time for us to talk about these things, to learn about these things. Instead of assuming that we already know and close the discussion with statements that end with "simple." from John Stuart Mill's essay titled "On Liberty": "...since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied."

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.