Looking at the Canadian system, one has to enjoy our current status of a minority government. Because the party in power is able to be out-voted by the rest of the seats, the right wing must make concessions and compromises to get their bills through. Of course, since when has Harper been good at making concessions to anyone but Bush?

In short, nothing happens. The old fogeys are appeased, because changes, if any, are small. The young’uns are pleased as well, because the evil right wing can’t do anything stupid and go power-mad. Nothing happens, including bad stuff. One can only hope for a similar situation in the next vote.

Personally, I don’t care who gets in power downstairs, provided they pull the troops out and nothing else major happens.

Althea —

I’m with you that it’s frustrating that people don’t pay more attention to local and state politics, especially since they’re the people who really make decisions on your behalf. It’s baffling to me that people pay so much attention to the person who has limited power and no ability to create legislative acts (and limited ability to scrap them), and not to the people actually writing and voting on them.

I disagree that democracy works in theory only, though. The bare-bones definition of democracy is a government that is based on the consent of the people and holds regular and “fair” elections; fair at least in the sense that there are specific rules governing them and the rules are enforced.

You can’t really say that democracy guarantees that the people will make “good” or informed choices on who represents them, only that they have the opportunity to help make the choice.

mary misanthrope Posted:

Althea —

I’m with you that it’s frustrating that people don’t pay more attention to local and state politics, especially since they’re the people who really make decisions on your behalf. It’s baffling to me that people pay so much attention to the person who has limited power and no ability to create legislative acts (and limited ability to scrap them), and not to the people actually writing and voting on them.

I disagree that democracy works in theory only, though. The bare-bones definition of democracy is a government that is based on the consent of the people and holds regular and “fair” elections; fair at least in the sense that there are specific rules governing them and the rules are enforced.

You can’t really say that democracy guarantees that the people will make “good” or informed choices on who represents them, only that they have the opportunity to help make the choice.

That reminded me of another system that works in theory. Karl Marx’s version of Communism. The government controls the wealth, and the people control the government, in short. Each working person is bumigned a job according to his ability, and everyone is given the necessities of life, as well as a few luxuries, according to their need. Unfortunately, Marx didn’t take into account 2 fatal flaws about people:

1. Power corrupts. Looking at the Communist leaders of the past, they did not allow the people to decide what they did. They just did it. This ruined the fallback system of Communism, and the government leaders were free to take as much of the wealth of the people as they liked.

2. People are lazy. Each working adult is bumigned their job, and received their food, clothing, housing, healthcare, etc, regardless of whether or not they decided to go to work. Without any real rewards for working, or penalties for slacking, the working man isn’t. This causes an economic collapse, and everyone loses.

If the government never got too powerful or too many ideas, and the working man stayed working, or was rewarded/penalized for his performance and attendance, then we would not be the Capitalist pig-dogs we are in the world’s most powerful countries.

mary misanthrope Posted:

I identify as an anarcho-communist, and I think that anarchism or communism can work, just not on a large scale, and not without the sacrifice of some of the comforts of contemporary living.

A-****ing-men. It does blow that in any “worthwhile” society these days, we’re dealing with large scale political systems. That, and the fact that most people, because of power, laziness, and the ideal American standard of living, refuse to give up their creature comforts for their own ultimate freedom.

Give me Ikea/Pottery Barn/Gap/AE/TV/$100,000 vehicles or give me Death.

I choose cake.

Althea Posted:

A-****ing-men. It does blow that in any “worthwhile” society these days, we’re dealing with large scale political systems. That, and the fact that most people, because of power, laziness, and the ideal American standard of living, refuse to give up their creature comforts for their own ultimate freedom.

Give me Ikea/Pottery Barn/Gap/AE/TV/$100,000 vehicles or give me Death.

I choose cake.

I bet if you made $100,000 a year and could afford those things your idea of “ultimate freedom” might shift a little bit. Especially if you worked your bum off to get there. I mean I agree about the general materialism as a status symbol thing is horse****, but everyone who makes a lot of money isn’t like that. You can’t just lump it all into a sterotype and say “that is the way it is” because that isn’t the way it is.

Vince Russo Posted:

not everyones lives are motivated by greed.

Log in to see images!

So anyone who works hard to get ahead are motivated by greed?

Vince Russo Posted:

when you start throwing numbers in there to define your point… uhmm yes. Thats what you insinuated good sir.

And for the record… uhmm yes.

Why would anyone work in a corporate suck environment? Thats pretty much the sum of that answer and most of Americas workforce.

However theyre are special cases such as inventors and the self-employed. I can safely say that the leaders of Green Peace arent rollin in BEAMERS.

But your local Catholic priest is.

lol you’re that guy

There are two types of greed.

Greed as a means is not necessarily a bad thing. Working your bum off in a corporate environment is not a bad thing if you want your family to live in a comfortable environment, your kids to be able to go to whatever post-secondary school they’re accepted to so they may pursue the career of their choice, and your parents to be well taken-care of in their golden years… It’s greed, because you want money, but only because money is what greases the wheels of society. It’s the way things have been for centuries, I dare say a millennium or three, and doubtless it’s going to be that way for a while.

Greed as an end, that’s a different story. If you’re working your bum off and sacrificing family, religion and honor just to have the biggest house, the most expensive gold-plated Escalade, and the most spoiled 15 ex-wives, then you’re a prick.

Vince Russo Posted:

Can you really call that version greed though? I would consider that more survival. When I think greed, I think more along the lines of extreme stinginess and unwillingness to part with money and yet take anything one can get. People who purposely detest the virtue of “sharing the wealth”.

At least in your first version the wealth is being shared by the family and spouse.

Agreed.

Greed isn’t what the other guy said, it is what you said.

Props.

Amp Zaphrix Posted:

Some would call it greed when the guy that pulls down more than them refuses to give to charity, or even buy the round of beers for the guys.

You’re right. Some might. Maybe he just has ****ty social skills, and a detest for charity. I personally think that giving money to charity is a HUGE scam. I’d rather devote a few hours and help people myself.