originally posted in:Secular Sevens
world wide implementation of socialist democracy. capitalist economy, effective property rights, and effective defense of personal rights and freedoms, and well as excellent welfare policies, examples are the nordic states, commonly referred to as the "best run governments in the world"
English
-
Our current model of economics is virtually useless in an automated society.
-
Not entirely. Although the physical representation is a little outdated. Its still easier than creating personal electronic devices which transfer money between people as those could be hacked. But our economic model is entirely outdated for both an automated world and a global economy.
-
I think you mean [i]social [/i]democracy, not socialist.
-
I think you don't know enough about it to tell me what i meant.
-
Edited by Mister Sparkles : 12/17/2013 6:08:26 PMI do when you think socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. . . Y'know, because socialism is an economic model, and what you say about welfare is correspondent with social democracy. Also, you've missed the point of the thread. It's all well and good naming the philosophies of an ideal society, the point is that the likelihood of such a society coming to fruition is very, [i]very[/i] low.
-
[quote]I do when you think socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. . . Y'know, because socialism is an economic model, and what you say about welfare is correspondent with social democracy.[/quote] they are not mutually exclusive. you can have state ownership of the means of production for certain items, items that everyone in the state needs. while at the same time having a free market for everything else. also, socialist democracy and social democracy are the same thing. social democracy is a blend of socialism and democracy, or a socialist democracy. not to be confused with democratic socialism. [quote]Also, you've missed the point of the thread. It's all well and good naming the philosophies of an ideal society, the point is that the likelihood of such a society coming to fruition is very, [i]very[/i] low.[/quote] i have not, i already told you the structure of this government in a previous sub-thread, one which uses all of our technology to make it as easy as possible for people to get involved. this means complete transparency, which is necessary in a government with no borders. the philosophies of this society would most likely be one which allows for free trade and individual property rights, while also protecting the lower and middle classes. this being social(ist) democracy which has already been implemented, and is associated with being the best for of government in use. our economy is already global, and its operators know this. they can enact change globally by changing a few variables. our governments have not followed suit and because of this our society has lagged behind and is now at the will of our economy, rather than controlling it. hell, if we're going to remove national boundaries in the first place, we're going to have to create a standard economic model. which means we'll have a chance to actually design a stable economy.
-
[quote]they are not mutually exclusive. you can have state ownership of the means of production for certain items, items that everyone in the state needs. while at the same time having a free market for everything else. also, socialist democracy and social democracy are the same thing. social democracy is a blend of socialism and democracy, or a socialist democracy. not to be confused with democratic socialism.[/quote] Well first of all, socialism does not equal state ownership and what you described is not a socialist economy; it is a mixed economy. It has socialist [i]elements[/i], sure, but to label it as such is to miss the point of its nature. Plus, "socialist democracy" is absolutely not the same as social democracy. The term just doesn't exist in any important capacity in any polity. [quote]i have not, i already told you the structure of this government in a previous sub-thread, one which uses all of our technology to make it as easy as possible for people to get involved. this means complete transparency, which is necessary in a government with no borders.[/quote] Again, you're missing the point. Structure and philosophy is irrelevant, the point is implementation. It may sound like an all well and good society to you, but like I said, the likelihood of this sort of government occurerng is incredibly low, and carries a lot of its own issues with it. [quote]the philosophies of this society would most likely be one which allows for free trade and individual property rights, while also protecting the lower and middle classes. this being social(ist) democracy which has already been implemented, and is associated with being the best for of government in use.[/quote] Again, implementation is near impossible. [quote] our economy is already global, and its operators know this. they can enact change globally by changing a few variables. our governments have not followed suit and because of this our society has lagged behind and is now at the will of our economy, rather than controlling it. hell, if we're going to remove national boundaries in the first place, we're going to have to create a standard economic model. which means we'll have a chance to actually design a stable economy.[/quote] Quite frankly, your idea sounds nice. However, for the reasons stated in the OP, and because of the influence of capitalism, do you genuinely believe it's a viable possibility?
-
i do, considering the fact that social democracy has been implemented on a national level, and works, and the fact that i suggested creating smaller, localized governments; i would say that it is entirely possible. coupled with the reach of the internet i believe implementation to be easy enough to warrant its use in any government we attempt to create in the future. continuing to rely on outdated methods, such as representative forms of government, will only lead to more of what we have seen in the recent past. that being a political class of opulence so far removed from the concerns of their constituents that they could not effectively do their job. take into account the fact that a single senator is representing an entire state's concerns, and you begin to see how one, let alone two, people could not effectively perform the job they were elected to. i believe my idea to be both progressive, transparent, and capable of surviving in the long term, due to its focus on an involved populace.
-
I'm not saying it's not a good idea. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, although I maintain it will have problems - like any system. My point is that the State, as an institution, will never allow its power to be truly reduced in such a manner, and neither will the far too influential capitalist interests. This is just my own view, but maybe I'm a pessimist.