Maxwell the Fool

Accept California isn't the state where all the rich people live (although a great many of them do). California has a VERY large underclass, and has a gap growing between the rich and poor. Also, that law doesn't keep the wealthy free of taxes, and is only a fairly small concession to them. In fact, California is seen by many as the most liberal state in the union. I lived in California for the vast majority of my life... So I know what I'm talking about :)

This.

Lordie, Aurielius, way to make this hard :P California messed up, they should deal with it. On the legalization of pot: Pot legalization would certainly yield tax revenue, but no where NEAR the amount that California is in debt. Stop pretending the the passage of a law with questionable morality would solve everyone's problems and move on to real issues ;)

In Organ a woman's state health care wouldn't pay for her cancer treatments, but it would pay for the drugs that she could use to commit suicide with dignity. Euthanasia's how you kill your pets =D (or neighbors).

For real foresight, check out Washington's farewell address. Our country is finding all of those perils which he foretold... O.o

Why are people that oppose your opinion "zealots"?

Origins of socialism: Compromise between Capitalism and Communism. Marx said himself that socialism is merely a stepping stone, a gate along the pathway to the true way: Communism.

Legally? No. But there is a long history of presidents who do just that (some not even in a time of crisis). Two of the biggest names that pop up are TR and FDR. One of TR's favorite phrases (according to my current History Professor, who's written several books on TR), was, "What's the Constitution between friends?" FDR did many things to mess up the checks and balances, such as the alteration of Executive Orders. Basically, there is no longer any accountability for them. And you're probably gonna get a fairly intense political debate, because the Constitution is the source of ALL politics in this country. Also the source of all law. Not a coincidence.

I don't see any more neutral option up there... I mean, I'm not certain that I agree with the Tea Party, but I know that some of their leaders are people that I detest. I mean... It seems that they have the basic principles correct, and are simply exercising their rights to free speech. There are certainly bad things that happen in their name, but I don't really think that those are people supported by the Tea Party. They're simply people who identify with the party and are significantly more radical. Just like there are violent Marxists and non-violent Marxists. Just like there's militant Islam, and Islam at large. There are bad apples in every bushel, it shouldn't be shocking that there are some in the Tea Party as well.

At the risk of steering this argument off track (and if you think I am then just say so, I can edit this up =D): I'm undecided on this issue, and think that it raises very interesting questions. The first thing that popped into my mind as a viable argument was: "They're man-made, and therefore not alive." But then I thought.... What if we created life from nothing? Things that fully constitute being animals. I don't know.. Even just a tribble type creature. Is that alive? (counter arguing myself...).

Grannywils, I must disagree with you vehemently. We have had Socialists in power in the US, and they did give us Welfare. FDR. Look at his policies, then look at the philosophy of socialism and tell me that he didn't conform to it. Look at the new deal. What did it do? It taxed people in order to pay the poor. Look at the second new deal. What did it do? It taxed people in order to pay the poor. Am I missing something here? Is this not textbook redistribution of wealth? Not only was he a socialist, but so were TR and Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow Wilson passed several laws in the favor of poor farmers, some of them including just flat handouts. TR was the inventor of the "Bully Pulpit," which is the idea that the president is the supreme authority, and stands above even the constitution. He passed many laws which directly overstepped the bounds of government's power (even utilizing a broad constitutional view, which takes full advantage of Article One, Section Eight). He is famously quoted as having said, "What's the Constitution between friends?" The TR facts come not from me, but it's from my current Professor of history (J. Lee Thompson) who is currently working on his second book about Roosevelt and also has a fairly high opinion of the man despite his Constitutional ingression.

The "Periodic Failures" are due to the capitalist wave. I explained it earlier in the thread, or, if you like, you can look it up.... Also, the depression of the early 1920s (no one learns about this...), very mild government intervention, in combination with natural market movements, fixed the system. The government intervention, by the way, consisted of lowering taxes on business owners.......

Mercantilism: It doesn't work if you have a limited amount of land.... which we do. Coous: Sure, crazy crap can happen, but it all works itself out eventually. Those who are self-destructive self-destruct, and more rise to take their places. This leads to a natural wave system. Also, I can think of several examples where socialism failed the US: GM and the bank bailouts. Don't think the bailouts failed? Dig this: The banks have all grown over the past quarter. Good, right? Not so fast. Why have they grown? The market has shown a LOSS! What's going on? Well, you remember how we're in massive debt? We're starting to pay that off! Yayayayayayaya again! And again, not so fast. We're paying it off by borrowing money that WE loaned the banks at 0% back from them at a standard rate. That's right, we're literally handing the banks more money, which is just putting us further into debt.

Myrmaad: I don't think that Isolationism failed, I think that there wasn't enough isolationism to be effective. Notice that the great depression was a world wide thing, and, although it was more severe in the US than most places, the bounce back came due to war profiteering, which was then backed by strong isolationism, which carried us through the 50s.

All governments are like that XD

Okay, so I've been tossing about the idea of a sort of fictional country, with which we could theoretically work out different forms of government, different policies, and different sizes, and sort of..... apply the lessons learned via thought to our own ideals. This thread is ONLY for political systems, NOT economic systems. If you want to debate those, head over to my other thread. I would like a semi-detailed sort of thing... Not as detailed as the constitution, but more detailed then a few arbitrary buzz words. A version of the US constitution written this way would be like: Three arms of government: Executive: President: figurehead with power of veto (veto may be overturned by 2/3 major). May create "executive orders" which, essentially, can do anything. Term limits. Elected by people, but not through popular vote. Legislative: House: Number of reps per province based on population. Require majority to pass legislation. Elected by popular vote within province. Senate: 2 reps per province. Require majority to pass legislation. Laws must pass both bodies! Judicial: Supreme Court: Tasked with the ultimate judgement of law, through interpretation. Lifetime appointment, appointed by president, okayed by Congress. Make sense? Okay..... I'm planning on playing the part of Devil's Advocate more than anything, but will throw out my own system after a while (which is VERY VERY VERY far from perfect...)\ Also, you can just spout off your random opinions about governmental systems, which can later be used for other people to build on for designs :) Please note: This thread WILL wander, and so long as it remains on government, I ask that it not be forced back on track by me, or anyone else. In fact, it's already started to go, which, for this topic, is a good thing :) Thanks for participating :)

I would argue that isolationism is ideal . And here's why: Systems such as Mercantilism and Capitalism operate on a wave. They go up and down. The economy fluctuates. No one can really force it in a preferred direction. Because of this, it's best for the economies of a planet to not be as connected to one another. Think about it, if we all went up and down at the same time, wouldn't the troughs be inexorably lower? If we all went up and down independently then wouldn't the world market remain more or less constant, even if the prominence of an individual nation was shifted?

The same helpful effects our found when drinking grape juice. It is the sweetening process undergone by grapes which causes the health effects. @Stardusk: Sure you can. Did you know that in the Phillipenes the slightest suspicion of you being involved with drugs will get you a serious case of speed-of-sound led poisoning? Guess why? Because it works. Kill people for committing a crime, and the frequency of that crime goes down. If we just killed anyone who committed any crime, all of our problems would be solved. EX: Texas. Texas has the highest usage of the death penalty of any state. It also happens to have the lowest occurrence of crimes demanding the death penalty, even though it's (unless it's gone up) the third most populous state.

But at the same time it has been exploited by the Chinese through Communism.

So then Mercantilism is a shade which can be applied to any system? I suppose that it would be adequate when applied as part of an "alternative" system.... Or am I not understanding?

Okay... Explanation of Mercantilism? Research is shady... And also, thank you Aurielius for your help :)

Sorry double post.

Please remember, this thread is about economic systems such as capitalism :)

Hey, ECONOMIC systems.... Not political. Please stay on topic....

I don't know about you, but I've been required to know the difference by second grade. And ever since No Child Left Behind (aka No Standard Left Unlowered), children in the US have been tested on that very thing since fifth grade. Which means that you're suggesting either that most of the forum's users haven't passed the second grade, or else have not passed a fifth grade standardized test...... Wow.