It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by samstone11
Would it not make sense that as the population explodes as it has over the past few decades that several factors become more apparent?
First, as I learned in the corporate world, the more crowded the field of competitors for power or simple existence the more those who are willing to lie, cheat, or steal what they want will rise in prominence. Ethics, morals. and extraneous effort to follow laws and regulations very rapidly creates a voluminous void between them and the corrupt. Honesty is far more often penalized than rewarded.
Second, sheer numbers produce more competitors with hidden or unsavory motives.
Third, if a true democracy were to exist, this could be a tremendous move in the right direction. No more electoral; college, no more republic, and one vote = one vote. Even if such a situation were to occur, there would always be sore losers which could lead to a new set of concerns.
Fourth, even if a true communist ruling party were to exist, this could be a tremendous move in a better direction. Redistribution of wealth does not have to come by robbery, it could simply be allowed through real honest to goodness "effort invested is directly proportional to rewards gained". This falls under communism as those who refuse to participate reap exactly what they earn. Social services would be entitled and empowered to expect returns for their investments in under performers as opposed to free hand outs for laziness and unwillingness to add to the greater good.
Fifth, keeping our money "in-house" would very, very quickly make this country become perhaps completely self sufficient, thus reducing the need for an over-sized government in the first place. The added benefit would of course be we could actually build friendships and honest relationships with other nations if we just got out of their business. Less war would equal less rebuilding. Discontinued appointing ourselves the world's police would save tens of billions of dollars.
Sixth, if common sense exists were to somehow actually become a per-requisite to serve in upper level government, a huge amount of problems not only disappear, but by the act of common sense law could never again return.
Last, any government would still have to maintain a global position of power with some means of passive Mutually Assured Destruction. We can't paint targets on our chest in the process, but as we withdraw from trying to dominate world events we could become the 800 pound gorilla who stays in his own cubby hole with his family that no one wants to tick off.
There will be great answers to your question, op, and I hope my thoughts are helpful and not offensive to anyone participating in this exercise. Thanks for the topic and good luck.
Originally posted by BadBeast
It's not Goverment that's the problem, the enemy, itt's the very idea of government.That we need to e governed..It's been culturally drummed into us for so long we have forgotten how to take charge of our own lives. How to look to ourselves for answers instead of some ruling body. Anarchy (Not anarchISM)
The rule of one. The self. There should be no sovereign greater than that which you have yourself. No kingdom bigger than one man's life. The proportionate resourcing of everyman's needs from sustainable sources. All pVia apple
Originally posted by FyreByrd
Okay - I'll agree with the power and corruption and the need for checks and balances. That was precisely why out government was set up with three equal and separate branches of government. But I would ask where is the source of the corruption you are speaking of? I would assert that it is Big Business not Government it'self.
The only role of government, and as you neglected to say what level of government, I will assume you are speaking of the Federal Government, is to protect us from Exterior Threats. All other services and functions should be handle by Big Business. Presumably because private enterprise is more effecient. There are many cases of government being more efficient then private business as in Medicare and USPS. These services would be prohibitively expensive to a large sector of the population.
Personally, I don't see business willing or able to provide services or protect the commons that would be non-discriminatory and cover all citizens. - But I'm willing to listen to schemes that say otherwise.
But what of the incompetance of Business?
And what happens to the poor, sick and elderly - Will business provide for them? Will business provide any social security net? No - they don't even adhere to current contracts with existing employees and retirees.
The almightly contract is binding on the little guy but not the Corporate person. What you suggest, appears a nightmare where Corporations are the only 'people' that have rights and real existence. People are just a 'consumable' resource - to be used to failure and discarded.
Give some direction to sources for how this Corporate paradise can be found. I've yet to run across one in literature with the execption of Rand's attempt in her novel but they were theoritical musings not day to day practical visions.
Really - Show me your vision of a better world through Corporate Rule.
Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
Not at all. Over regulation and taxation of businesses is much harsher on small businesses than large corporations. Established corporations with high net worth are able to pay high taxes and exploit loopholes to work around regulations (i.e. outsourcing). Furthermore, lobbying and bribing by large corporations is what got us in this mess to begin with.
It is important to understand that American capitalism is crony capitalism; oligarchs of industry are protected by the government, creating a symbiotic relationship that prevents said oligarchs from failing. In a true capitalist setting, bad business practices would have consequences leading to the downfall of businesses.
Keep in mind that the consumer is the lifeblood of the corporation; the corporation is dependent on the consumer, hence why competition requires it to remain competent or become irrelevant. The incompetence of business should lead to the death of said business. A bailout should never become the standard as a safety net for corporate incompetence and malevolence.
As for the role of government, ask yourself why we have formed governments, and why we need governments. History shows us that a divided, disorganized people are easily conquered by a unified and organized people. For the sake of the sovereignty of our land and the survival of our people, then, we need to be unified in our defenses. Otherwise, we end up like the Native Americans, being slowly forced out of our land and brought close to complete ethnic annihilation.
What other need do we have for government? What do they ever do right? Protect us? Please, all they do is take our tax dollars and wage war with them, all for the sake of private interest groups and corporate profit. Not to mention pigs and the entire police establishment, the apex of corruption and incompetence. A justice system that fuels the prison industrial complex? Oh yes, I feel so safe knowing that some kid who got caught smoking weed is going to prison for a few years to work hard labor for 15 cents an hour, justice in the form of new-age slavery is served.
Government and business, like government and religion, don't mix well.
ETA: On the topic of affordability, (edited for space)
Originally posted by FyreByrd
Two - what are the alternatives to government that you think would work in a diverse society such as the United States where, by definition, we are of many races, cultures, creeds, ages, abilities?
Originally posted by unphased
I still say drop it all and let's get a council of elders.... 100.. 2 from each state..
Originally posted by FyreByrd
Originally posted by BadBeast
It's not Goverment that's the problem, the enemy, itt's the very idea of government.That we need to e governed..It's been culturally drummed into us for so long we have forgotten how to take charge of our own lives. How to look to ourselves for answers instead of some ruling body. Anarchy (Not anarchISM)
The rule of one. The self. There should be no sovereign greater than that which you have yourself. No kingdom bigger than one man's life. The proportionate resourcing of everyman's needs from sustainable sources. All pVia apple
This is simply not workable. Even tribal man, had some form of government. You are beliving the myth of the self-refliant self where you can provide everything you need for survival on your own. It's never been, or never will be possible.
The only thing that allows civializtion is distribution of duties in the past mostly by accident of birth (going back to that one) but more and more (I hope) based on skills, education and desire.
Everyone needs a mother and community to raise them. This me, me, me is all I need delusion is dangerous.
Originally posted by Cabin
reply to post by FyreByrd
I believe government is necessary for any civilized nation. Without common rules being set, there would be anarchy.
Originally posted by FyreByrd
One is why do you hate government? Do you hate it at all levels (Federal, State, County, City) or just at one particular level? Do you see any value in government at any level and in any situation?