Notices

View Poll Results: what's the best social system?

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • captialsim

    3 15.79%
  • communism

    1 5.26%
  • socialism

    0 0%
  • anarchy

    0 0%
  • modified captialism

    8 42.11%
  • modified socialism

    7 36.84%
Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: the perfect social system

  1. #1 the perfect social system 
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    the goal of political systems is to run a government, in my opinion.

    and the goal of a government is to run society, again in my opinion.

    so, i pose the question: what is the best way to run society? because that is the ultimate goal of politics(if you factor out corruption)

    please, have at it. i'm in favor of socialism with a capitalist sector. i'll elaborate if someone decides to bring socialism up.


    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    2
    I voted for modified capitalism. I think a society that rewards those who are ambitious while not punishing those who are in need is ideal.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    I voted for none of the above. Human beings are too damn complicated to be able to write up a 'perfect' system.

    It is possible for a totalitarian dictatorship to be exactly what a particular society needs, as long as the dictator is the right person. It is possible for a socialist system to be cruel and repressive. It is possible for a capitalist system to be the opposite.

    Anyone searching for the 'perfect' system who wants it to slot into such simple categories is going to be perpetually disappointed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    I vote for a society where nobody takes polls seriously.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    8
    modified socialism.
    The goverment should take care of her people by giving them basic rights and basic conditions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    alright well so far we've got people saying that a social system should be a reward system for good behaviour, but not punish the weak(modified capitalism). and one person in favor of a social system that provides basic rights and conditions to all(modified socialism.).

    however i agree with skeptic, my question was too vague. one cannot make a perfect social system that works for all societies. so i propose that we discuss what social system is most likely to benefit america, and which social system will be most likely to benefit china.

    i'm a firm believer in a hybrid between capitalism and socialism. because in my opinion pure capitalism degrades those who are unlucky or unfortunate to sometimes sub-human standards. and pure socialism thinks of all people as complete equals and doesn't reward those who do well, which i think discourages progress. a good cross between the two(modified capitalism or modified socialism) can provide both the incentive to do well, and the basic rights that all humans deserve.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    I prefer social democracy with a mostly free market, keeping energy resources and health care industry socialized.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    7
    Domocracy in hand with a constitutional monarchy in my opinion. Democracy ensures that citizens, for the most part, get a legitimate say in the running of their own country. Throughout history, time and gain, other structures of government have been proven ineffective. Systems that leaders have thought were 'perfect'. The fact is, humans have ambition. Some have such ambition, that they will stop at nothing to achieve their goals, (i.e. ruling a country) There will always be people like this, even in a so-called 'perfect society'. They will have goals to control an aspect, or many, of the country. A constitutional monarchy ensures that the country, as well as having a fair say in the ordeals of the country, have a rallying point. A national pride. Britain has a democracy, and morale, because they not only get what they want, and need, they have a source of pride.
    "I may not believe what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

    "Gatsby believed in the green light!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    I don't think there's anything all that special about constitutional monarchy. In fact, it can be a point of contention. Canada is a constitutional monarchy, but the queen is not welcome in Quebec, where she is a symbol of English imperialism more than national heritage and would likely be pelted with rocks. Frankly, I'd rather see the monarchy abolished from Canada completely, and I'm ethnically English. My old Anglican mother would be appalled to hear it, but I'm used to disappointing her.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    893
    I believe that a civilised modern society should have three basic aims.
    1) Political freedom.
    2) Economic efficiency.
    3) Social justice.
    I do not believe these are easy targets and I do not think it is possible to achieve social justice without having economic efficiency.
    On that basis I would say that a capitalist economic system along with a liberal democratic political system gives us the best chance of achieving the above aims.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Imo all systems we've seen so far through out history are usually (or end up being) derived from the primitive power struggle hiearchy and group-feud dynamics seen in animals. Its primitive and simple, even animals can enforce hierarchy with a mix of violence, control of ressources and stratification to leverage advantage and consolidate power. Humans just have managed to come up with more elaborate versions of this which usually adds institutions(religion, corporations) and control of information(secrecy, deception/propaganda) to the mix.

    The systems our predecessors have devised from the time where people tought the earth was flat to the previous century to now may have had some merits, but they are outdated. If a society allows humans to die from lack of food, shelter, from untreated curable diseases, or from man made disasters the society contributes to (pollution, war), that social system gets an F in my book.

    So my answer is none of the above. We need a new democratic system based on consensus, transparency, full and free access to knowledge, and the most up to date knowledge and methods, with the aim of improving the quality of life for all in society. Such a system needs to strongly and actively counter the primitive crap described above; consolidation of power/wealth, disaprity/stratification, power struggle, control of ressources/patronage/corruption/hoarding/speculation, secrecy/deception, violence/repression. One that favors, from a micro-management/operational perspective, local democratic autonomy(to account for diffencences in culture, lifrestyle and preferences) with network coordination and support (thus non-herarchic).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Frankly, I'd rather see the monarchy abolished from Canada completely
    Think of Her Majesty as a sort of Santa Claus. We understand it's irrational make-believe, yet a people's capacity to conspire in make-believe is a strength. Civil society depends on collective fidelity to implicit understandings. The monarchy tests and proves our strength in that regard, and that's really all there is to it, frankly.

    There is no way to explicitly write this device into a constitution.

    Oh well, Pong's Constitution of Canada would formally recognise Santa Elizabeth's successor. So don't listen to Pong - he's silly.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by saul
    i'm a firm believer in a hybrid between capitalism and socialism. because in my opinion pure capitalism degrades those who are unlucky or unfortunate to sometimes sub-human standards. and pure socialism thinks of all people as complete equals and doesn't reward those who do well, which i think discourages progress. a good cross between the two(modified capitalism or modified socialism) can provide both the incentive to do well, and the basic rights that all humans deserve.
    The question is what parts should come from each system in order to create the new Chimera? I wouldn't advise just sloshing all the attributes around and randomly picking, nor doing it by debate and compromise, so we just end up doing a half-way job of everything.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3
    I voted for communism. I did not vote for Lenin's communism or Mao/China's communism. I voted for what I believe what Marx thought communism and socialism would turn to be. I am supportive of socialism, both the socialization capital to provide for people as a form of reform, and the revolutionary socialism controlled democratically by the workers, which is 99% of the population in the United States. The first type of socialism which I think most people support a form of, which is a state run socialism, I see as a reform that can provide for people until the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism occurs. The problems with capitalism is that it does not reward the ambitious. It does not reward those people who work hard. It does not reward who are smart. If it did, than undocumented immigrants who have a PhD would not have to work 3 jobs to provide for their family as they starve to death. That is more hard work than I am willing to do and my family makes hundreds times as much. Capitalism only rewards the rich and those who own property. That is why the owner of GE does not have to work to make millions of dollars every year. There is no way that one person can work hard enough and smart enough to the equivalent of millions of people. It is beyond absurd. Capitalism rewards those who are willing to exploit and dehumanize the rest of the population. A workers revolution organized democratically with equal opportunities is the possibly the only solution. Socialist revolution is possible. Socialist societies have risen up throughout history. They were smashed by more powerful societies. They are possible like it is possible for Native Americans to live peacefully and democratically before the more powerful European nations killed them off. Communism is another stage of socialism which I do not want to fully explain here. Lastly, socialism does not believe that everyone is equal. Instead, it supports the idea that everyone should have the equal opportunity to make something out of their lives. It gives people the freedom to live as they choose and become who they want. Everyone is provided for their basic needs. Then, people can provide and do what they can for themselves and the rest of society. They are not restricted through exploitation from doing what they want or can. Capitalism does not provide this for neither the oppressed or the oppressors. The oppressed are kept weak and dehumanized by the institutions created by the oppressors. The oppressors are forced to maintain that system of exploitation. They can only be ambitious in the business of exploitation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    The problem with communism is that it has been tested in the real world and failed, every time.

    History shows it leads to totalitarian dictatorships, and poverty for its people. Capitalism needs to be restrained by government, but modern democracies with capitalist-based economies still give the best way of life to the people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    15
    Modified Capitalism

    The reason for capitalism is because the market forces are an invaluable trait of such ideology which socialism could never hope to match. The ingenuity of supply and demand to control prices allow firms to compete and therefore strove for low price and quality. It is also prompts innovation and thus development in technology in the name of humankind. The reason for modified, however, is because capitalism is fundamentally based on the gulf of rich and poor. Freedom in the markets allow some to earn astronomical amounts of income and thus, the bourgeois populace get better off whilst the poor stay poor. Government intervention/modification is imperative for a balance of freedom to equality. Furthermore, the balance must be maintained since a disgruntled population grows weary of its oppressors and will inevitably rise up, leading to conflict and anarchy as shown in history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    I voted for modified capitalism. People must have the freedom to choose and strive and to learn from their mistakes; however, society must protect itself from those "too big to fail" and from those "too small to survive".
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    5
    One could postulate that "capitalism" will always be here in the sense that "I scratch your back you scratch mine" is a natural state.

    It seems none of the old paradigms truly apply as we now have the technology to create an abundance and freedom from drudgery which we never had before.

    What about "post scarcity" economics?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    i think that you have chosen a very fitting name, that is quite clever of you.

    however capitalism isn't exactly "you scratch my back i'll scratch yours" all society is based on tit-for-tat, but capitalism is different from most others in that it contains free and open markets and privately held property. these things are not direct emergences of tit-for-tat, they are different way in which we use tit-for-tat in our society. socialism is the same ultimate behavior in that the public works to help the government produce, and the government is supposed to return the favor by distributing the needed goods in a way that helps all their people.

    problems with this arise in capitalism when there are no jobs available because there is no increasing demand, and thus suppliers aren't hiring. and problems arise in socialist systems when the government doesn't return the favor, or the people refuse to do the work in the first place.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    5
    Saul
    I didn't think of the name.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_scarcity

    what I meant to convey/postulate was:
    even if we could have all the material things we wanted
    and had robots to labor for us
    there would still be things we would want from other humans
    and so there would always exist a sort of "capitalism"


    thanks for responding

    though I find your explanation of the "problem " with capitalism and socialism to be "off the mark" and respectfully disagree with your assessment.


    also i think the following statements (syllogisms)are logically proveable

    people don't want jobs
    people only want/need the paychecks that come with the jobs
    What (educated)people want is "careers" or the ability to pursue passions and theories etc..

    More the problems with capitalism are that companies make more profit by producing shoddy goods that break
    doctors only make money if people stay sick
    police don't want crime to end because they will lose their paychecks
    etc.
    Capitalism is inefficient and encourages corruption and scarcity.

    you might like to google "the Shirky principle"
    http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archiv...hirky_prin.php

    I could go on and on on the subject of capitalism and economics, however,

    In the interest of efficiency I am going to be putting detailed information on economic models on a website which is now under construction rather than here

    Thanks again
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    5
    Also Saul sorry but as I am prevented from sending pm's for some reason I have to publicly point out that you have a misspelling in your "quote" in the word "approved" and might want to change it to appear more, well, clever
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman jduster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    10
    No system is perfect, or even near it for that matter.

    Mixed capitalism is optimal though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    128
    perfect means end of world.
    and what really is capitalism, communism, socialism, anarchy, modified captialism, modified socialism????

    There are a thousand Hamlets in a thousand people's eyes.

    My communism is a place where everyone can get living essentials and leisures as they need while they work to gain these, special rights always come together with special responsibilities, same work effort with same paid.
    But to some(maybe most)others, communism is just everything gov controlled, no personal rights.

    So only a word "communism" or "capitalism" has any meaning?

    We can argue these for a whole day! And not knowing what else talk about!
    Talking about something have meanings!
    Such like how reducing oil cost, how decrease military production, how stopping many animal and plants vanish, how we human live better????
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •