I’ll be damned, msmith537. I think this is the first time we seem to have agreed to some degree on something. We may see it from a slightly different angle, but we seem to be looking at pretty much the same thing.
Complaints about content don’t go very far, only about jerk behaviour.
Perhaps the difference is a glass-half-full, glass-half-empty thing. We may agree that democracy is imperfect and prone to corruption, but not as much as everything else; I just don’t view our current circumstances as so terrible, largely because I think the problem is the general run of humanity, not the political system. No ideological scheme can perfect an imperfect humanity.
Rather than talk about alternatives to democracy, let me put a question to you that may firm things up a bit: how would you fix the current situation? How would you break up the control the “leisured class” and the rich elites have? Or is fundamentally impossible to do so?
Hansel,
On your last paragraph: I think this depends on how we define “leisured class” and “rich elites.” Bill Gates is just about the richest guy around. His gazillions of dollars can buy a lot of influence, etc. Regardless of our opinions about the software his company makes, and the ethics of the company he started, is Mr. G. a “rich elite?” He certainly didn’t AFAIK come from a wealthy background, but pretty much built up his empire to where it is. Does this need to be fixed? If so, how would that be done without discouraging enterprise and initiative?
Lots of movie stars and athletes are also rich, but did not get that way by being born into it. Is there some fixing that needs to be done regarding some Cuban ballplayer who got here on a raft and is now a millionaire, or is that “the American dream” made real?
Then there are those who were born into it: Kennedys and the like. Of course, someone in the last few generations had to have started somewhere to create the family fortune. We all have dreams of somehow acquiring a fortune to leave to our children and grandchildren. Should we be kept from doing so?
Some elite, wealthy, “leisure class” people actually do a lot of good for society as a whole with charitable works, foundations and so on. If they also fly private jets and have mansions in the hills or on the beach, is this wrong? If they provide financing for politicians, is this a bad thing if they happen to be politicians I like, too, or only if they finance the ones I don’t agree with?
This is a difficult question. On the one hand, it is true that there are business people (the current mayor of NYC, for example) who seem to have unlimited resources to buy whatever they need to finance political or other goals. On the other, to go too far into redistribution of wealth smacks of communism.
Much is made of the influence of Political Action Groups, and they do sometimes seem to have undue influence. But: How does this get changed without preventing you and me and the people we agree with from getting together to finance some would-be officeholder that will push our agenda?
Just some food for thought.
**
I think that the glass-half-empty approach has an undeserved bad reputation. If one is content with the glass being half full then one is unlikely to fill it up. I would think that in this day and age mankind could fill the glass on this issue, ‘cause it sure does seem to be half empty.
And I certainly disagree that the glass is half empty because of basic human nature. I think it is human nature to improve technologies and methodologies, not settle for half-emptiness. While humanity is not perfect, it can do a lot better.
No, I think the problem is a system that fosters and promotes the worst traits in human nature. A system that rewards and promotes integrity and effectiveness would breed those qualities. A system that rewards and empowers alliances to narrow interests at the expense of the greater populace is a system that will breed narrow-mindedness and corruption of honesty.
Good questions. You are leading me into an area that I’ve said I would leave alone, but I’m going to answer the questions anyway and see where it leads. You will perhaps understand my reluctance when my answers open up many more questions that will probably require substantial further explanation.
How would I fix the current situation? Disassemble the system that has bred the situation—democracy and the politics that are ingrained in the system. Then implement a system that didn’t cater to special interests but rather promoted the greater interests of the nation.
How would I break up the control the “leisured class” and the rich elites have? Implement a system whereby a tenure in public office is attained and retained, not by an election, but rather by record of pure results, i.e. statistical measurement of good works that determine by whom a position of public responsibility is filled. The specific statistics would have to be truly representative of the purpose of their position and would have to have a very definite set of regulations by which to operate, but if that were the case, the public official would be driven to close his/her ears to bullshit and special interests and make sound evaluations and decisions. This would also weed out the nincompoops and dullards who are short on management skills and economics but are large on emotional speeches.
Furthermore, I would abolish the traditional monopoly of governments. Governments merely provide a service like any company. The difference is you can’t shop elsewhere if you think your government is incompetent. So the government can charge any price it likes for its services (taxes) and if you don’t like it, your options are to go to jail or leave the country to enjoy another variation of the same arrangement. If competing organizations could offer their services for the management of currency and public services and the like, and citizens could choose which company to subscribe to, the so-called “governments” would be forced to get their shit together. But then the term “government” would become somewhat obsolete, because people would no longer be “governed,” they would be truly free people who are simple serviced.
It is impossible to break up the control the leisure class and the rich elites have under the extant political arrangement. The system lives and breathes according to that manipulation. Like I said, the entire framework of government would need to be reformed. The problem is that it has historically taken massive and violent upheaval to bring about that degree of change in a culture.
There you go, hansel. I know my answers may stretch the boundaries of what you can consider, but there they are. I only ask that you give it a little thought before you retort with the “that can’t possibly work” and “how ridiculous” come-backs. Specific questions, arguments, and suggestions about elements that you don’t see as practical are still perfectly welcome.