- #106
Smurf
- 443
- 3
What's the difference between Capitalism and what you call "law of the jungle?"
Smurf said:What's the difference between Capitalism and what you call "law of the jungle?"
How is that any different than any state on earth? I could kill you Vanesch, I just need to find a way to do it. That, and I'd need to want to in the first place.vanesch said:Physical violence. You do what I say because otherwise I beat you up and I am stronger, or have friends which are stronger than your friends. I can even kill you, I only need to find the way to do so. Your friends might then try to kill me - or not - depending on what they think is more advantageous for them. Nowhere to complain, no judges, no laws, no police. The natural way of things.
Smurf said:How is that any different than any state on earth? I could kill you Vanesch, I just need to find a way to do it.
The purpose of this thread is to offer solutions to the problems you are describing. Most on this forum already realize the dysfunctionality of our political system.Zlex said:So, here is how 'we' of the also on average, average populace, fix this; 'we' magically warp into an informed, educated, intelligent, reasonable electorate, as oppoised to an 'average' electorate, and we insist on populating not only the top spots, but every level of government with only the best and the brightest and the most capable. We will create the raw fodder for this miraculous transformation of government by demanding more of our kids when we expensively send them off for a free education, so when they emerge, they will form not only a broad foundation to people this massive government that some believe can bandage every skinned knee imaginable under any scenario, but form that informed electorate as well.
Of course, until we do that, we get what we get; on average, some tiny fraction of a led around by the nose electorate playing their part in our silly assed Circus elections, anointing some poor bastard to ride around in the bullet-proof limo and manage a massive organization of 'on average' human beings, subject to the same distribution of corruption and incompetence and indecision and fear and ineptitude as the population at large.
Who the Hell are we kidding? When was this not ever so, and when will it not ever be?
Politics in this nation has seldom elevated itself above the absurd, and we will always pay a price for that. Indeed, even if we could agree on that non-partisan statement, our politics immediately prevent us from agreeing on the fundamental 'why.'
Skyhunter said:What I am looking for is ideas, not rants. Jeez, I have enough of my own I don't need yours as well.
Skyhunter said:The purpose of this thread is to offer solutions to the problems you are describing. Most on this forum already realize the dysfunctionality of our political system.
What I am looking for is ideas, not rants. Jeez, I have enough of my own I don't need yours as well.
I would prefer going through it alphabetically and rotating every 3 months, but its your country.Zlex said:You know what couldn't be worse? Repopulating the highest levels of elected government randomly from the phone book; a draft.
I suggest we at least try it.Zlex said:You know what couldn't be worse? Repopulating the highest levels of elected government randomly from the phone book; a draft.
Hey there's still time for 2008!Astronuc said:I nominate Russ Watters for President of the United States!
Go get 'em Russ!
from Publisher's WeeklyBeckel and Thomas, political analysts and columnists for USA Today, examine the problem of political polarization by asking, Why are you reading this book? The answer: Bottom line... you are ticked off at politics. Rigid partisan beliefs, they think, have become more than a product of opposing ideologies—they have created an environment for the sole purpose of retaining political power, raising money, or making more money... benefit[ing] a few at the expense of many. Using a mix of arguments and anecdotes, Beckel and Thomas (a liberal and a conservative, respectively) assert that polarization creates conscientious nonvoters and congressional roughhousing and deceit. The book's ultimate purpose is to disarm partisan warfare by encouraging voters and candidates to align themselves with principles that directly benefit the largest possible number of citizens. The lucid political discussion between a conservative and liberal is refreshing, but their proposals are too utopian to realistically be widely embraced. Their proposition that independent thinking can be more effective than an adversarial pack mentality is a step in the right direction, though. (Oct. 9)
Throughout, Thomas and Beckel explode conventional wisdom and offer surprising new conclusions:
- The Red State/Blue State divide: Myth!
- A "common ground" presidential candidate can win in 2008: Reality!
- "Polarizers" like Ann Coulter and Michael Moore are the future of political debate: Myth!
- Major-party politics faces extinction: Reality!
These guys should know. For years Beckel and Thomas contributed to the climate of polarization in Washington . . . and they admit it. "We're two guys who spent a lot of years in the polarizing business, but on opposing sides," they write. "We helped write the game plan, and we have participated in everything from getting money out of true believers to appearing on television to help spread the contentious message. In many cases, we wrote the message. We know the gig, and it's just about up."