Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We need MultiVac.

I think it's time we start embracing our mechanical overlords.

 Cheesecat wrote:
The most comfortable and prosperous countries in the world are all democratic so democracy must be doing something right.

Could that be down to most of the population have very similar political beliefs? If so then I can believe that you would get a Democracy that works in the way that people imagine a Democracy should work. Many countries, including us in the UK and the US have too many diverse views and opinions for Democracy to work in the way we all imagine it should work.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Benign dictatorship is probably the best you can hope for.

No such thing.

 LuciusAR wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Benign dictatorship is probably the best you can hope for.

No such thing.

Bolded the important bit

Yeahhh,srs time


Is democracy overrated, why yes it is, people vote for the person/party that they want to win, then when they try and do something that influnces them in a negative way they immediatly cry wolf and run off and vote for the next person/party, and so the process repeats itself until all the partys become so central so they get more votes, as is happening in the UK with Labour (LibLab).

However if there is one party in control at least you know who to hate.

The problem with democracy as we have it in the UK and other similar places is there is nothing in place to force parties/individuals to actually stick to their election pledges.

When it is the big main parties doing it, they get enough votes to win seats almost regardless. The Lib Dems really suffered when they completely dropped all of their party's promises except the one no one cared about other than the Lib Dems but they are small enough and enough of a protest vote party that they can be influenced in that way.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
The problem with democracy as we have it in the UK and other similar places is there is nothing in place to force parties/individuals to actually stick to their election pledges.

When it is the big main parties doing it, they get enough votes to win seats almost regardless. The Lib Dems really suffered when they completely dropped all of their party's promises except the one no one cared about other than the Lib Dems but they are small enough and enough of a protest vote party that they can be influenced in that way.

The conservatives have given the lib dems the poison chalice. In disregarding they're own policy's, they've banked everything on the economy getting better before the next election.
Which it now seems like it won't. They've alienated they're power base, students, intellectuals etc. Thus weakening themselves, whilst strengthening the conservatives.
The conservative vote will be maintained, because these are the sort of policies they voted for.

Democracy isn't overrated, it's underexcecuted.

Of course Democracy is a terrible system of government, but it is the best one we have.- Paraphrasing from some British guy circa WWII.

That'll be Sir Winstan ChruchHill, the scourge of the Hun:

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

One of the biggest "culprit" is the bajiillion-word tax code that was created at the behest of influential interest groups that tenaciously defends the status-quo.

So, the tax code was created by democratic process, and is defended by the same method?

Yup.. in a way. With the current laws/regulation, do you think they've could've forseen how this would be used?

Bear in mind that an "influential interest group" isn't necessarily composed of people within the !%, nor does it necessarily represent them.

True... I just wished there were better exposure as to which groups/industry get said favorable tax laws... and which congress critters voted for it. In other words, we somehow need better TRANSPARENCY. That way the media/voters can hold congress accountable.

 whembly wrote:

Tax (political) reform would reduce the opportunities for the political class to throw its weight around. That's why it won't happen anytime soon, short of a "National Convention".

Tax reform and political reform are only the same thing if you are discussing the power of a given body to levy taxes.

Yeah... true. That's the crux of my statement.

 whembly wrote:

Yup.. in a way. With the current laws/regulation, do you think they've could've forseen how this would be used?

You need to be more precise. Are you only referring to tax law?

 whembly wrote:
In other words, we somehow need better TRANSPARENCY. That way the media/voters can hold congress accountable.

I'm not certain how that could be accomplished, as Congress is already quite transparent. I suppose we could implement Big Brother style house cams, but most members of Congress probably don't look good naked.

 whembly wrote:

Yeah... true. That's the crux of my statement.

I did a poor job of explaining myself. Tax reform would involve altering how taxes are levied. Tax reform would become political reform when it regarded whether or not a body could levy taxes.

Adjusting the tax rate would be tax reform. Taking away a government entity's ability to levy taxes would be political reform (and tax reform).

 whembly wrote:

Yeah... true. That's the crux of my statement.

I did a poor job of explaining myself. Tax reform would involve altering how taxes are levied. Tax reform would become political reform when it regarded whether or not a body could levy taxes.

Adjusting the tax rate would be tax reform. Taking away a government entity's ability to levy taxes would be political reform (and tax reform).

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Yup.. in a way. With the current laws/regulation, do you think they've could've forseen how this would be used?

You need to be more precise. Are you only referring to tax law?

In this discussion... yes.

 whembly wrote:
In other words, we somehow need better TRANSPARENCY. That way the media/voters can hold congress accountable.

I'm not certain how that could be accomplished, as Congress is already quite transparent. I suppose we could implement Big Brother style house cams, but most members of Congress probably don't look good naked.

LOL... Here's an exercise. Do you know of any existing tax loopholes/write-offs/incentives AND which congress-members/party who voted for it?

Me neither.

 whembly wrote:

Yeah... true. That's the crux of my statement.

I did a poor job of explaining myself. Tax reform would involve altering how taxes are levied. Tax reform would become political reform when it regarded whether or not a body could levy taxes.

Adjusting the tax rate would be tax reform. Taking away a government entity's ability to levy taxes would be political reform (and tax reform).

Yes, I'd advocate to alter the tax laws in such fashion that it minimized the government's pre-ponderances to use it for "political favors" or social engineering.

Apart from all its civil rights issues, China's doing pretty well by cheating a weird form of Democracy (and Communism for that matter) into

"We're all the same party, working on the same goal, even if we disagree on how to get there - please don't shoot me - at least I have freedom to practice semi-capitalism!"

 whembly wrote:

In this discussion... yes.

In that case: Yes, for the most part.

 whembly wrote:

LOL... Here's an exercise. Do you know of any existing tax loopholes/write-offs/incentives AND which congress-members/party who voted for it?

No, but it would take me less than a day to discover; assuming I was proceeding from written legislation. If I were proceeding from a particular Congressman it would take less time.

 whembly wrote:

Yes, I'd advocate to alter the tax laws in such fashion that it minimized the government's pre-ponderances to use it for "political favors" or social engineering.

First, the word is "preponderance", but it doesn't make sense in that sentence. You probably meant to use the word "predilection."

Second, so long as a government has the ability to levy taxes it maintains the ability to grant monetary favors to certain groups, which inevitably involves "Social Engineering*."




*Which is a bad thing, apparently.

I feel that the democratic process works fine, in small scale. I feel that the United States is a bit too large for democracy to work as well as it could.

I honestly feel that the State/County/City scale is where it works best. I don't feel that a single government body can accurately represent the interests and opinions of 300 million of the most racially, religiously, and morally diverse people on the planet.

As much as people like to say otherwise, Americans are not a single people. We are a mass of various beliefs, and many of those beliefs conflict with each other.

I'm all for a single unified DEFENSIVE military. I think if our country needs to police the world "to protect our interests" that we should instead look to self sufficiency. Lord knows we have enough oil to not need it from other countries.

We generate far more calories per day than our nation consumes. If our country really wanted to, we could cut off a vast majority of our dependence on foreign resources.

I feel that the states should be left to govern themselves, and that Federal laws should be restricted only to enforcing the Constitution itself. We are starting to see this, with certain states basically telling the federal government to piss off(recent marijuana legislation as an example). Many federal laws(and local laws for that matter) are very outdated, but still strictly enforced.

I think that one step in fixing that would be to have a 10 or 20 year term for any given law, and at the end of that term a vote should be held to keep or abolish said law. Our culture changes. Our opinions change, our emotions change.

I think our country does a piss poor job of utilizing the only system of government that seems to work decently on our scale. Sadly the people with the power to change this have far too much power, and are paid by special interests to NOT change things for the good of the people.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

In this discussion... yes.

In that case: Yes, for the most part.

 whembly wrote:

LOL... Here's an exercise. Do you know of any existing tax loopholes/write-offs/incentives AND which congress-members/party who voted for it?

No, but it would take me less than a day to discover; assuming I was proceeding from written legislation. If I were proceeding from a particular Congressman it would take less time.

 whembly wrote:

Yes, I'd advocate to alter the tax laws in such fashion that it minimized the government's pre-ponderances to use it for "political favors" or social engineering.

First, the word is "preponderance", but it doesn't make sense in that sentence. You probably meant to use the word "predilection."

Oops... that is the exact word I was trying to use...thanks.

Second, so long as a government has the ability to levy taxes it maintains the ability to grant monetary favors to certain groups, which inevitably involves "Social Engineering*."




*Which is a bad thing, apparently.

Over time... yes, it can be a bad thing. We need a reset button.

Need I say more?

 whembly wrote:

Over time... yes, it can be a bad thing. We need a reset button.

Okay, Hugo Drax.

Social engineering is a natural function of government, which is a natural function of society. You can no more remove social direction from the state than you can from a community.

 Wolfstan wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
The most comfortable and prosperous countries in the world are all democratic so democracy must be doing something right.

Could that be down to most of the population have very similar political beliefs? If so then I can believe that you would get a Democracy that works in the way that people imagine a Democracy should work. Many countries, including us in the UK and the US have too many diverse views and opinions for Democracy to work in the way we all imagine it should work.

Why would having diverse opinions ruin democracy?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Over time... yes, it can be a bad thing. We need a reset button.

Okay, Hugo Drax.

Social engineering is a natural function of government, which is a natural function of society. You can no more remove social direction from the state than you can from a community.

Right... but make it harder to implement... i.e., new taxes / cuts requires super majority.

I ain't Hugo... more of a Tyler Durden meself.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
The most comfortable and prosperous countries in the world are all democratic so democracy must be doing something right.

Could that be down to most of the population have very similar political beliefs? If so then I can believe that you would get a Democracy that works in the way that people imagine a Democracy should work. Many countries, including us in the UK and the US have too many diverse views and opinions for Democracy to work in the way we all imagine it should work.

Why would having diverse opinions ruin democracy?

Indeed, democracy would be useless if there was any form of homogeneity of opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

Clement Atlee: "Democracy means government by discussion, but it is only effective if you can stop people talking"

Keeping the discourse going is one of the best features of democracy. That way, those who haven't got their way can still hope that it will happen in the future, and aren't faced with the choice of being forever discontent or overthrowing the system.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
The most comfortable and prosperous countries in the world are all democratic so democracy must be doing something right.

Could that be down to most of the population have very similar political beliefs? If so then I can believe that you would get a Democracy that works in the way that people imagine a Democracy should work. Many countries, including us in the UK and the US have too many diverse views and opinions for Democracy to work in the way we all imagine it should work.

Why would having diverse opinions ruin democracy?

For the simple reason that you can't please everybody, all of the time. If the diverse opinions made up a fraction of the overall percentage of a population, then it's likely it can be ignored or it's not such a big deal. If you have 20, 30 or 40% of the population with a fundamental difference of an opinion, then their views have to be taken into account. I'm not saying it's bad, but it sure as hell won't make it a plain sailing Democracy.

 whembly wrote:

Right... but make it harder to implement... i.e., new taxes / cuts requires super majority.

So, we're talking about taxation, specifically? And this whole thing about equating taxation with social engineering (as a general concept) was essentially a poor attempt at trolling?

 whembly wrote:

I ain't Hugo... more of a Tyler Durden meself.

There is very little difference.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Right... but make it harder to implement... i.e., new taxes / cuts requires super majority.

So, we're talking about taxation, specifically?

In this discussion...yes.

And this whole thing about equating taxation with social engineering (as a general concept) was essentially a poor attempt at trolling?

I'm not trolling... taxation isn't ABOUT social engineering. It's the tax LAWS (with the bevy of exemptions, loopholes, rebates, etc..) is the social engineering aspect. Is it bad... maybe, maybe not. Could we change it so that it doesn't disportionately point the favors to the few rich/powerful entities? Sure.

I mean, take a look at Baucus' and Hatch's recent efforts...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/senators-announce-blank-slate-approach-to-tax-reform/2013/06/27/b3adbcb0-df3b-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html

I like the "Blank State" proposal... don't you?

But the fact that the responses had to be anonymous and locked away from public view probably tell us more than enough.... doncha think?

How are you going to get enough members of any political stripes to sign on to any sort of significant, tough changes to the tax system if they won’t even put their name to a suggestion in the open?

That's why, imo, this will never change... unless, short of another National Convention (which the status-quo crew abhors).

The blank slate approach is a pretty good one, though, and might actually prove to be the one place where a stymied and gridlocked legislative body such as the one we “enjoy” now would be useful.

So... to get those "goody tax rules" put back in place post-blank state implementation, you’d need to get a majority of congress to agree in order to put them on record. With that as the bar set, it should be very difficult to change tax laws except for the VERY popular laws, instead of the usual backroom "cloak and dagger" styled agreements. ( <--- yeah, over reaction )

 whembly wrote:

I ain't Hugo... more of a Tyler Durden meself.

There is very little difference.

Okay... you got me there...

 whembly wrote:

Could we change it so that it doesn't disportionately point the favors to the few rich/powerful entities? Sure.

The rich and powerful will always grant favors to the rich and powerful as they have commonality. You can orchestrate a revolution which exchanges rich and powerful group X for rich and powerful group Y, but that's pretty much it; at least in either of our lifetimes.

 whembly wrote:

I like the "Blank State" proposal... don't you?

No, it changes nothing.

“We plan to operate from an assumption that all special provisions are out unless there is clear evidence that they: (1) help grow the economy, (2) make the tax code fairer, or (3) effectively promote other important policy objectives,”

The above is very vague, meaning that it can be used to justify nearly any special provision.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Could we change it so that it doesn't disportionately point the favors to the few rich/powerful entities? Sure.

The rich and powerful will always grant favors to the rich and powerful as they have commonality. You can orchestrate a revolution which exchanges rich and powerful group X for rich and powerful group Y, but that's pretty much it; at least in either of our lifetimes.

Can't argue against that... why don't we FIGHT THE POWAH?

 whembly wrote:

I like the "Blank State" proposal... don't you?

No, it changes nothing.

Of course it would... it forces the current congress-critters on record.

“We plan to operate from an assumption that all special provisions are out unless there is clear evidence that they: (1) help grow the economy, (2) make the tax code fairer, or (3) effectively promote other important policy objectives,”

The above is very vague, meaning that it can be used to justify nearly any special provision.

You do have a point... that is very ambiguous. Bleh

 whembly wrote:

Of course it would... it forces the current congress-critters on record.

The electoral and voting histories of all members of Congress are currently public record.