Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 02, 2014, 02:03:53 PM
532484 Posts in 40274 Topics by 5042 Members
Latest Member: DMullet
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  Democracy: the God that Failed « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: Democracy: the God that Failed  (Read 4517 times)
wickednick
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 32
Posts: 567



« Reply #30 on: November 27, 2009, 09:50:13 PM »

Heres a topic I've spent hours arguing about with my anarchists, commie friends, thats not an insult mind you I just have some really bizzare friends.
Technically are government was never a true democracy. Its a republic, if you go back and look you will see that are government was referred to as a republic since the beginning. The term democracy really didn't take hold until the 1900's.
The problem is as I have always said that as a population gets larger more rules and regulations are needed to keep it and the economy under control. The idea of having a system were everyone can live and work together with little or no government oversight is nice, but eventually never works because humans are selfish and stupid when they get in a large enough group. Inequality will always be around not matter what because resources are limited and only so much can go around. China and Russia both tried the method of rationing out equal portions to everyone, and millions starved as a result.
 The problem I don't think lies in are system of government as much as it lies in its over commercialization. The way media works now days is over whelm you with info then force you to take sides. And because humans are social creatures who want to be part of a group we have little choice to but chose a side. This takes the whole democracy part out of the equation because we can no longer think for our selves.
The second problem is money. Money is evil but unfortunately it's a necessary evil. We can't all pay for internet access with produce from are gardens, or expect the government to fix are roads with out resorting to slave labor. Money allows for people to get food, shelter and the amenity's of life with out them having to perform those services them selves. Its allowed even the poor in are country to still be fed and housed. Its increased are quality of living as a whole and are massive increase in population has been a direct result. Are desire to get back a simpler way of living is natural, but few truly realize how difficult it is to live that way. Money brings out many of people more un pleasant tendencies and so we get rich fat cats on wall street robbing people blind.
Lastly as I said earlier there are just to many people. How can a world of 6 billion people keep them selves restrained and under-control. The more people there are the less land there is, less food, more of us constantly having to go shoulder to shoulder with others, more competition all over. This always will lead to fighting, the only way to keep things from getting out of hand is through government oversight.
This is the part anarchist constantly over look. Small groups of people, can easily regulate them selves so long as they all believe they have a purpose and are working for something, but as soon as there is a famine, or a bad winter peoples relationships with each other break down.
It may seem I have gotten off point here but what I'm trying to point out is that nothing works perfectly and often you have to choose the lesser evil and be satisfied with it. If people want things to change then they can make them change for better or worse.  You just need to deal with it.
Logged

Smells like popcorn and shame
Jim H
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 237
Posts: 2944



« Reply #31 on: November 28, 2009, 04:15:37 AM »

Quote
You would pay for your school, police and roads the way you pay for your newspaper  delivery and you could give all the rest of your money to something YOU care about or keep it!

How would we have money without a central authority?
Logged
Trevor
Chief Troublemaker at Badmovies.org
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 842
Posts: 10860



WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 28, 2009, 04:45:25 AM »

Heres a topic I've spent hours arguing about with my anarchists, commie friends, thats not an insult mind you I just have some really bizzare friends.

 BounceGiggle BounceGiggle
Logged
lester1/2jr
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 643
Posts: 7526



WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 28, 2009, 10:51:48 AM »

Quote
China and Russia both tried the method of rationing out equal portions to everyone, and millions starved as a result.

which is why I'm arguing for the exact opposite of what those people prescribed


Quote
The problem is as I have always said that as a population gets larger more rules and regulations are needed to keep it and the economy under control.

this seems to argue against your previous point.

Quote
expect the government to fix are roads with out resorting to slave labor.

just as an aside, "the government" doesn't fix our roads.  our tax dollars pay for our roads to be fixed by people the government hires.  they don't have any money themselves they have our money.

ostensibly, we could pay those people to fix those roads ourselves. eliminate the middleman as it were.

Quote
The more people there are the less land there is, less food, more of us constantly having to go shoulder to shoulder with others, more competition all over.

ever hear of siberia?  most land in most countries is not being used.  also,  you are making the same mistake Malthus did.  in fact,  the more competition there is the more food there is.  there is not a finite amount of food and there is a finite amount of land generally only in the crowded areas and even then land that was seen as marginal (or not ideal)  before can be used if under slightly less friendly conditions


Quote
Small groups of people, can easily regulate them selves so long as they all believe they have a purpose and are working for something, but as soon as there is a famine, or a bad winter peoples relationships with each other break down.


that happens anyway!!  people always say to me " if people are left to their own devices the roads and bridges will fall apart, the schools will be neglected and perverts will go around acting with impunity".

as opposed to now??


skullbat- I have n't had a lot of debates with non ancap (anarcho capitalist) anarchists because trhese aren't exactly the two biggest ideologies out there, I mainly talk politics with big time obama and sarah palin fans, but i did see noam chomsky who is ostensibly some kind of anarchist talking about ron paul type libertarianism and I was pretty shocked at how silly and frankly statist it was.  I don't think economics is among his many expert areas.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2009, 11:00:51 AM by lester1/2jr » Logged

Jim H
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 237
Posts: 2944



« Reply #34 on: November 28, 2009, 06:52:49 PM »

Quote
ostensibly, we could pay those people to fix those roads ourselves. eliminate the middleman as it were.

This is one of a handful of areas where the government is ideal, actually.  There's a reason even extreme libertarians don't want the government to leave the transportation sector.  When something is as extreme in scope as a national road system, the only entity large enough to manage it is a government - or a corp. so large it might as well be one, which would be really bad for reasons I think should be obvious.  A road system is not something that can be done well on a local level, and attempts to take it beyond a local level will lead to forms of authority that lead to, at the very least, a limited form of government. 

Granted, since the roads already exist, today it's largely maintenance, which could last locally for a while.  But try to imagine the interstate system ever coming into existence without a government.  It simply wouldn't happen.



....then again, considering how bland and culturally stagnant the areas surrounding the interstate are, maybe that wouldn't be so bad.
Logged
lester1/2jr
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 643
Posts: 7526



WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 29, 2009, 12:33:13 PM »

Quote
A road system is not something that can be done well on a local level, and attempts to take it beyond a local level will lead to forms of authority that lead to, at the very least, a limited form of government.


the government doens't have a bunch of masterminds for these roads, it beings together the various state and rural and they cooperate.  and the gas tax pays for the roads.

there are very few things in life that one person knows all the different parts of a given issue, 

here is a good illustration of this in the form of a satirical piece of writing called "I pencil"  abuot all the different industries and experts it takes to make a pencil.
Logged

venomx
Guest
« Reply #36 on: November 29, 2009, 12:52:02 PM »


Logged
Jim H
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 237
Posts: 2944



« Reply #37 on: November 29, 2009, 09:03:34 PM »

Quote
A road system is not something that can be done well on a local level, and attempts to take it beyond a local level will lead to forms of authority that lead to, at the very least, a limited form of government.


the government doens't have a bunch of masterminds for these roads, it beings together the various state and rural and they cooperate.  and the gas tax pays for the roads.

there are very few things in life that one person knows all the different parts of a given issue, 

here is a good illustration of this in the form of a satirical piece of writing called "I pencil"  abuot all the different industries and experts it takes to make a pencil.


So, they bring together all the state and rural organizations and they co-operate.  You're right that is largely between the states, but it's still government run.  I have difficulty imagining the system working well without any real oversight.  Can you provide an example of a road system on a large scale ever built without a good deal of government oversight, planning, etc?  Or anything of similar complexity in public works? 

I'm skeptical.  The burden of proof is on you for something like this.  You say anarchism is a better replacement for what we have here, but I've yet to see any compelling evidence of this.

My other question about the existence and usage of money also still stands.  Where would the basis for money come from?  What about international security, for that matter?  How would you have an army without a central government?
Logged
lester1/2jr
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 643
Posts: 7526



WWW
« Reply #38 on: November 30, 2009, 10:35:57 AM »

Quote
I have difficulty imagining the system working well without any real oversight.

well we had the big dig here in boston and I'd say the oversight was pretty darn lax.  Largely this is because of corrupt bearocrats and their well conected corporate friends in the construction business who were given contracts not because they were the best available people but because their brother knew someone at city hall or something.  

the REASON massachusetts NEEDED the big dig or wanted it was because of excessive traffic and the inablity of the previous system, called the artery, to manage the job.  

people are more than willing to pay for things they need or want.  I certainly would have paid my own money for the big dig as I used it every day.   I would much rather have paid for that than the war in iraq, for example,  which I don't use everyday!

when you look at it, what government does isn't any big mystery.  if a neighborhood needs a road fixed the government, when they get around to it, calls up the road person and that person goes down there and fixes it.  the difference between that and bringing your car to the mechanic is you are free to choose which mechanic you want to go to and you and your community are not free to choose who you want to fix your roads or how much you want to pay.  you have to take the package the government has foisted on you for these things which is more of often than not pretty mediocre,


Quote
My other question about the existence and usage of money also still stands.  Where would the basis for money come from?


how is money used now?  until the 1970's we had the best system imaginable: the gold standard.  it had been falling apart since the inception of the federal reserve system in 1913 but here in a nutshell is what it is if you didn't know:


         for most of our county's existence the dollar was backed by gold, specifically 20 dollars equaled one ounce of gold.  so, if you had any doubts about the country or the currency you could take all of your dollars to the bank and get them changed in to gold and go on your way.  

  unfortunately, nixon went off the gold standard so now you can go to an antique shop or online broker and get an ounce of gold for 1170 dollars!!!  that's how much value our dollar has lost.  the government doesn't like to ask for more in taxes because it's unpopular so they just inflate the currency.  that's the meaning of inflation, when they print more money.  

   so, a free market system of currency would be the stablest one.  people would likly not use actual gold or silver coins but they would be accepted.  atm cards and so forth could be emplyed or paper currency where you could have the option of trading them for gold at a steady gold backed price.  this is what money is supposed to be.  


Quote
How would you have an army without a central government?

I'll get back to you on this one, I not only have to get my argument together but i have been at this answer for a while now!  sufficet to say it would be very different than the military industrial complex which is based on the passive compliance of the taxpayer and can scarcely be said to be anything resembling  "defense" of the american homeland as the constitution describes.
Logged

Jim H
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 237
Posts: 2944



« Reply #39 on: November 30, 2009, 03:24:59 PM »

Quote
so, a free market system of currency would be the stablest one.  people would likly not use actual gold or silver coins but they would be accepted.  atm cards and so forth could be emplyed or paper currency where you could have the option of trading them for gold at a steady gold backed price.  this is what money is supposed to be. 

A "free market" of currency?  Really?  Are you aware of the state of currencies in the US before it was standardized, and the enormous problems caused?  And that was when it was largely restricted to states, let alone individual communities.  Plus, the lack of any protections on a private company printing money boggles my mind.  You'd have the most unstable and rapidly changing and fluctuating currencies (yes, plural, of course) in the entire world.  You might as well say we should bring back bartering.  I know I'd prefer it.  At least my stacks of deer skins will keep me warm when my currency is no longer in use.

Quote
the difference between that and bringing your car to the mechanic is you are free to choose which mechanic you want to go to and you and your community are not free to choose who you want to fix your roads or how much you want to pay.  you have to take the package the government has foisted on you for these things which is more of often than not pretty mediocre,

This would lead to another problem: the poor areas would have awful roads (really, they'd have even worse everything than they do now in your system, leading to an even worse divide in the rich and poor), since they'd have no way of paying to fix them.  And guess what?  They'd only get worse.  Not to mention it's hard enough to get private people to band together for much of anything, let alone pooling money to fix public roads.  It wouldn't happen til it was past the point of redemption. 
Logged
lester1/2jr
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 643
Posts: 7526



WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 30, 2009, 04:53:28 PM »

Quote
A "free market" of currency?  Really?  Are you aware of the state of currencies in the US before it was standardized, and the enormous problems caused?  And that was when it was largely restricted to states, let alone individual communities.  Plus, the lack of any protections on a private company printing money boggles my mind.  You'd have the most unstable and rapidly changing and fluctuating currencies (yes, plural, of course) in the entire world.  You might as well say we should bring back bartering.  I know I'd prefer it.  At least my stacks of deer skins will keep me warm when my currency is no longer in use.

the dollar has been the US currency since the nations inception and it was until recently backed by gold.  are you referring to the Continental dollar?  yes, that was a good example of how not to have a good currency and is exactly the reason why the founders CHOSE to have one backed by gold.  but it WAS the official currency

you are absolutely right about the deliterious effects of printing money without any protections.  unfortunately that IS WHAT WE HAVE NOW.  the federal reserve has printed trillions of dollars, money that is not backed by anything and that has been losing it's value steadily.  and we have no choice but to use it because businesses are forbedden from taking anything else. 



Quote
This would lead to another problem: the poor areas would have awful roads (really, they'd have even worse everything than they do now in your system, leading to an even worse divide in the rich and poor), since they'd have no way of paying to fix them.  And guess what?  They'd only get worse.  Not to mention it's hard enough to get private people to band together for much of anything, let alone pooling money to fix public roads.  It wouldn't happen til it was past the point of redemption

poor areas are pretty sad looking now, relatively speaking. and yet we have a 3 trillion dollar budget.

would you rather poor areas had better roads and schools or would you prefer wars in the middle east?  YOU DON"T GET TO CHOOSE


If you were allowed to keep the entirety of your paycheck you could donate 10 percent of it to the poor peoples roads initiative.

if you don't that's your prerogative.  Is it your contention that unless we have the state FORCING us to help the less fortunate we wouldn't do it?  i think it's the exact opposite, the idea that the state has all these programs is what allows people to turn away from a beggar, where once they wouldn't have done so.

I believe the poor would be much better of without a state because the state uses about 1/1000 of their budget to help the poor.  the rest goes to wars, subsidies for junk we don't need or use and the beaurocracy to run all of it!

I know this becaue I make very little money and the state does absolutely nothing for me personally.  I have to pay them taxes so that nancy pelosi and these people can form committes to study the slamander and all those peopel can get massive pensions.  given the choice I wouldn't invest in this research with these personell on such a contract but that's me.


Logged

Jim H
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 237
Posts: 2944



« Reply #41 on: November 30, 2009, 08:52:17 PM »

Quote
the dollar has been the US currency since the nations inception and it was until recently backed by gold.  are you referring to the Continental dollar?  yes, that was a good example of how not to have a good currency and is exactly the reason why the founders CHOSE to have one backed by gold.  but it WAS the official currency

I was referring to pre-constitution.  Bank notes, basically.  It causes a great deal of problems when a single CITY could issue what was basically its own unique currency.  It would be infinitely worse in the present day, due to much much greater interdependence in the country.

Quote
I know this becaue I make very little money and the state does absolutely nothing for me personally.

So..  You don't drive or use the roads for anything?  You don't have police protection?  A prison system?  You don't have a fire department?  The National Guard goes out of its way to avoid your area in the event of an emergency?  Your food isn't inspected for disease by anyone?  I find that difficult to believe.  Sorry.
Logged
the ghoul
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 92
Posts: 667



« Reply #42 on: December 01, 2009, 01:43:29 AM »

what IS utopian is what we have NOW!  this fantasy that our government reflects the common interests of our community and that they have no interests of their own, only to express our interests.

I agree, lester.  We don't have a representative government, nor do we have a democracy or anything close to it.  If anyone's been drinking the Kool-Aid, it's the people who believe that we do have a say, and those who think that either liberals or conservatives can be trusted to make things right.

I used to be an Anarchist, but my lack of faith in human nature eventually led me to reconsider that position.  Now I'm just jaded.  One thing I do believe is that if we don't get rid of the corrupted system we have now and start over again from the ground up, things are going to go from bad to worse.

But that would require people to give up the Kool-Aid.  When they finally open their eyes, it will probably be too late.  
« Last Edit: December 01, 2009, 02:09:57 AM by the ghoul » Logged
lester1/2jr
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 643
Posts: 7526



WWW
« Reply #43 on: December 01, 2009, 10:09:25 AM »

Quote
So..  You don't drive or use the roads for anything?  You don't have police protection?  A prison system?  You don't have a fire department?  The National Guard goes out of its way to avoid your area in the event of an emergency?  Your food isn't inspected for disease by anyone?  I find that difficult to believe.  Sorry.

well again, I pay for the roads with the gas tax.  if you buy gas you are paying for the roads.

I meant the state doesn't do anything for me in the sense of the distribution of welath and helping the poor and whatnot.  the taxes collected from the rich are not distributed back to the poor.  a microscopic amount is allotted for the things you mentioned, most of which feature substandard efficiency, and the rest goes towards wars subisidies beaorcracy and other junk.  

by beaurocracy I mean departments rather than actual utilization: the department of education rather than actual schooling, the department of labor rather than actual labor.  

and no the government does not inspect food for disaease.  they issue guidlelines but companies often have even more strict guidlelines because they want to retain customers, not because they care about the states opinion on food safety.  

I would rather ALL of my taxes went to roads, schools and teachers rather than a very small portion of it, that's all.  

the state is like a package deal where you get alot of channels you don't want and don't get the ones you do want.  I want Spike, CNBC and Versus!  and I want to pay for those and just those

Quote
I was referring to pre-constitution.  Bank notes, basically.  It causes a great deal of problems when a single CITY could issue what was basically its own unique currency.  It would be infinitely worse in the present day, due to much much greater interdependence in the country

not if they were backed by gold.  what's infinitaly worse is going to the UK and the eurozone and having your dollars be worth half what they are here.  If the government didn't inflate the currency that wouldn't happen, but they do because they try and mamange the economy and fail.  Why would i want to be paid in a currency that steadily loses it's value? 
« Last Edit: December 01, 2009, 10:11:30 AM by lester1/2jr » Logged

lester1/2jr
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 643
Posts: 7526



WWW
« Reply #44 on: December 01, 2009, 02:15:47 PM »

economist ludwig von mises "The existence of producers is a condition for the survival of conquerors. But the producers could do without the plunderers."
Logged

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  Democracy: the God that Failed « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.