Social-Democratic Aspies?

Post Reply New Topic

Well, the reason that McJeff said that socialism required authoritarianism has nothing to do with the belief of socialism. There are many non-authoritarian socialists, the problem comes in because some body of people must enact the socialist policies and in doing so it amasses great power. The concentration of power in such a body over the lives of people gives it great control that could easily become authoritarian because in order to act the government must have the power to do so and to generate this power it might feel the need to be more restrictive and oppress people even more. It is not about the ideal of socialism only the fact that governments like to get larger and have great problems getting smaller. Socialists that are anti-authority are common because of the fact that they oppose the current situation of power, in order to have their dream many people think that they would create their own demon which could very well be true because the system would probably either become less restrictive(more capitalist) or more restrictive(more authoritarian) in order to find stability.

That was just my theory on the whole matter though.

Actually, I think the problem with American youth is that they are just disobedient, it could be that they are too dependent on harmful cultural effects or something but still. Americans are very rebellious and clueless at the same time, if our propaganda and doctrination was effective then we should be using it to improve our students and workers.

American foreign policy is bad, we should be trying to get more good will across the world. I do think that trying to befriend India was a good idea due to the growing power of India but we have angered many people in Europe and we have angered the Middle East too. Our social policies could need some improving in terms of education I think, we need to make sure that people have social mobility and can rise based upon merits, however, I think that people should mostly be responsible for their own lives. Constantly subsidizing things and taxing heavily would be bad for the economy, it would be bad for the industries in question and I think it would worsen the net welfare of the United States.

Direct democracy has problems because the people may not have great knowledge on the issue at hand and might be pushed towards extreme positions if things get somewhat bad. The average citizen does not have a great understanding of economics or of the requirements of government, we could easily get a situation where the majority oppressed the minority or where a majority imposes laws that end up being harmful for the nation.

For example: the average person does not have a great understanding of the economy so if something seems bad to them they may impose a government regulation that ends up being unreasonable and that could cause us to go into debt and that could ruin the economy. One example of a well-meaning law that had horrible consequences is the La Follete Seamen's Act of 1915 which tried to establish a living wage for seamen, the result was not so much of a living wage but instead an industry that could no longer compete with foreign industries. The average person would probably pass many well meaning laws that end up doing horrible things to the economy.

Another problem with the socialist economy is that great bureacracy would be required to have national industries or these industries would have to be broken up into many tiny industries. In both examples the industry would become more inefficient, one by bureacracy that couldn't be regulated away and the other by being too small to have a sufficient economy of scale. Also, by breaking down the economy into small local industries the ability of these industries to work together would be diminished which would mean that short falls in one part of the nation might not be addressed by other parts. These small industrial regions also might have the problem of not being able to support themselves due to a reliance on imports from other regions, this creates a problem because the whole point was to break down the national infrastructure but in order to have one sided trade(one side helping out another part of the nation) there would have to be a powerful federal government in charge of such things.

A great problem with a socialist economy is the fact that it does not adapt to change as well as a capitalist economy. Socialist economies can support themselves with taxes and debt until the entire system collapses and therefore don't feel a need to change. The capitalist economy adapts very well because individual corporations cannot support themselves too long in a hostile environment and must do something or die and these companies also seek profit which means that dying industries fade away and growing industries grow quickly in order to get profit.

Anyway, I did acknowledge the problem with American foreign policy to show that even though I disagree with some of your points I still am not disconnected from reality. American foreign policy does suck.

Our dealings with India probably had a lot to do with the growing power of India. That is how the system works. We suck up to groups with power because we don't want to be screwed over by the system and we might be less friendly to nations with less power because they can't do as much. This is only human nature, humans tend to seek the most benefit at the least cost because such is logical. Practicality is the governing force of government actions or at least practicality should be. After all, if nations ignore power and such then they might find themselves in an much worse situation economically due to the loss of trade agreements and things of that nature.

Theres nothing in the concept of a direct democracy to say there couldnt be a constitution which would prevent persecution.

As for near-sighted policies, thats just as likely from an elected leader, or a dictator. The difference is, an elected leader, being one person, has a motive for corruption that a whole population doesnt have. And a dictator can even get away with it, so long as he/she isnt overthrown by militant action.

Well if it does happen then f**k you, I want it. Especially if it is evil and selfish.

You are right, politicians are well known for being corrupt fools. The only thing is that some matters do require an agent to take care of certain business. I would say that the probability of near-sighted policies is greater from the average person than from representatives. Representatives usually have some experience outside of politics from which they can draw off of and make better decisions with. If the majority of a population is hicks then you don't want them to have too much political power. Dictators can be horrible though in terms of governing. I think that one of the strengths of the representatives is that the power of the people gets somewhat diluted because the politicians must suck up to powerful groups that represent major political interests in the economy. Power needs to be respected in any political system. Anyway, I think that a problem with the direct democracy comes in from the question of who would implement the decisions(some government position must read all of the votes and implement the choice) this person or group would then hold great power, especially if the wording of the law is bad.

The votes could be counted through an electronic system, and the votes themselves wouldnt have to be read, just numbers off a screen. These numbers could be sent to everyone automatically to make sure nobody can manipulate them to there own advantage

Well, I suppose that that may eliminate some of the problem but who will be the group that does the will of the people? Some politician? Also, what if the will of the people creates sort of jagged looking policies as public will flip-flops? Politicians will often stay their course to some extent but public opinion could change every single day. The current political system is not really that corrupt, it allow for longer term planning as politicians get to keep their spots for some time which can be used to wait out short term negative effects or to fix policies that did not work out as well as intended. Besides, I still think that corruption could occur by only messing with the voting process and how the votes are received. After all, some group has to set up the voting booth and to have each Yes add one point to the counter of No would not be very difficult.

I agree the points that the original post her had about social-democracy except for nationalizing industry

regulation yes,
nationalization no,