Wow. This thread went REALLY far off the rails while I wasn't looking... too bad. It was a nice little discussion for a while there.

Really? Seems the OP was about government's/society's role in our day to day lives and how much responsibility it should have and/or assert therein.

@ Draugnar: While you and I may differ in our views, at least I have always found that you are willing to discuss things reasonably, which is more than can be said for TMG/diplofool.

We have had the whole discussion about communism already so I am sure you will appreciate it if I don't endlessly repeat myself. You are aware of my views and the reasons why I hold them. I could respond to your point about what motivates people, but you have heard my response several times before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_trade#World.27s_largest_defence_budgets

As for communism/socialism and i would go a little further. I would encourage insurance companies and banks to be run as co-operatives (so the shareholders who you are duty bound to profit are the customers - who are annoyed when they get screwed over) Effectively credit unions instead of banks. Insurance companies which are run for the profit of their users.

It doesn't matter if the government doesn't run the insurance company which offers your health insurance, if the profits are spread fairly among the customers - you can even keep competition between these companies (but this applies to motor insurance aswell) - To ensure the poor have access to health insurance some minimum level of money could be provided to ALL members of society. (this being paid for by the tax dollars of the rich - but they would directly benifit from my imagined scheme instead of only benifiting the poor - though i'm sure you get some sort of tax credit for certain things like paying insurance already...)

This sort of distributive system is more communist/socialist than the pure capitalist the US is currently used to, but for some services i believe it may provide better value to society (instead of simply having a government run monopoly on health care/health care insurance, but also not simply letting market forces go wild)

Yeah, no problem. I was just trying to distance myself from Diplofool. He had a brief moment of lucidity earlier, but then went *way* OTT again. And I agree that we both understand where the other is coming from, we just don't agree on everything, with our primary difference being in the realm of luxuries/extras/privilege.

I have been thinkign some, though, on the problem of inheritance and came o a decision I know you will disagree with. :-)

Inherited wealth and or power is fine. At some point the wealth and power was earned by someone. That person earned the priviledge of deciding to pass it down to his progeny or give it to charity. If they chose to pass it down, it isn't my place to tell them that they can't. Even if it gets passed on to generations down the line. Some individual chose to do that at the beginning of that generational line.

I mean, a litle further than Draugnar goes when it comes to social services and how to best provide them.

@Draugnar "Even if it gets passed on to generations down the line."

does this go for inherited political power aswell? I mean it seems a fair enough arguement you are making, i just want to know if you would have a problem with applying the same logic to (say) the Bush presidency passing on through the generations... (or say the Saudi Regime, though i don't know how they pick their leaders, i'm assuming it is heriditary)

@orathaic - Of course not. I don't believe we should abandon our electoral system and I don't believe in monarchies that run everything. The people need to have a say. But, I do believe that the say should be weighted based on who it affects most. this is sort of in place now as I can't vote in a California election because I live in Kentucky. But it doesn't go far enough in that I am affected by decision made in Cincinnati like most of Greater Cincinnati is, and yet I, also like most of Greater Cinci, don't have a say in the election of the officials or in the sales and employment taxes in Cincinnati or Hamilton County because voting is based on residency alone and not on verifiable employment.

I also believe that a person's financial exposure should be used as a basis for how much of a say they get, just like in the stock markets. If I have a net worth of $250,000 (I wish), I should get more say than someone who owns a junker, rents their home, and has $25 in their pocket and bank account combined. Likewise, the executive with a networth of $2.5 million should get more say than I do.

This would serve two purposes. It would encourage people to work their way up the "success" ladder and it would encourage the wealthiest to be more open about their money. As a side effect, it might also keep more of the wealth within our national borders as only US-based net worth would count.

@orathaic - I forgot to mention. I like the health-insurance cooperative a lot. I veiw health insurance as a utility just as much as the electric and gas company are utilities. I belong to an electric cooperative and wish that I had a gas cooperative in my area as well. Making all banks and insurance companies be cooperatives is somethig I could definitely get on board with. In fact, I think all utlities should be cooperatives as well. Duke energy shouldn't be. even Time Warner or Insight or any of the other cable companies shouldn't be. You have no choice in your cable or phone provider. If you want cable (not required, but still...) then you have to go with the only one who services your community. Want a landline? Same thing. As long as there is a community-based monopoly, those companies should have to be cooperatives or the community-based government should be in control (like many water and sewer systems are).

So I'd vote for your financial cooperatives idea being a requirement.

As for keeping wealth within your borders, i think common sense trade policy is that now the more you invest in your neighbours the more they can expand their economies and buy from you. (benifitting both economies)

Thus i question the usefullness of keeping your resources limited to one country.

Secondly there was a time when only land-owners had the right to vote, and it resulted in biased and unfair treatment of the poor. I think most countries have moved beyond such practices. (and the US constitution is based on the idea that all people should be treated equally)

but my question was why should influence (like a monarchy) not be inherited - let's assume we're not talking about the US, but your idea that power and money/influence should be inherited. Why would you not support a monarchy? (actually perhaps the rich are already elected in America based on the personal inherited fortunes, though the US does have some amount of democracy in that you can choose between the two possible inheritors of power - ie whoever the two main parties put forward...)

"If you want cable (not required, but still...) then you have to go with the only one who services your community. Want a landline? Same thing. As long as there is a community-based monopoly, those companies should have to be cooperatives or the community-based government should be in control (like many water and sewer systems are)."

Ireland had a state-company running a monopoly on the phone lines for a long time, it was prizatised and split up in more recent years. I think a state should provide this sort of infrastructure (power lines, roads, telecommunications) but could then rent usage of that infrastructure to private companies (who offer usage to the general public)

so multiple telecoms companies renting the same phone lines from the government would allow the government raise money to invest in new tech, spend on new capital infrastructure projects, and not have a state-based monopoly (with all the ineffeciencies that would go with such a system)

@orathaic

First, the two parties also take a vote on who to put forth, so the people hget to speak there as well. They just have to pick which one they will get the ballot for.

As far as monarchies go, a benevolent dictator is still a dictator and his progeny will still be dictators. Monarchies are foine as figure heads, but the power still needs to be with elected officials as well. England has a fine monarchy with the Houses of Lords and Commons and Prime Minister really running things. But if the Queen had (maybe hse does?) absolute power and chose to use it to abolish the Houses and the PM's office, then I would view that as a bad thing, no matter how benevolent she was to her subjects. One day, one of her progeny would come to power and supress the populace for his or her own gain.

As far as the Telcos, privatization is fine as long as it comes with competition. When AT&T was split up, the long distance market was opened up for competition. this was a good thing. But local telcos still hold a monopoly on the landline market. If the leaseing idea you present were in place, then there would be competition and it would no longer be a monopolized utility. Natural gas is that way in most places. Even with Duke, I can choose to have my gas come from any of a number of different sources at different rates and offering different levels of service. But if my electricity came from them, I would be stuck with them and their rate and have no say. Thankfully, my electric is a cooperative (as I mentioned) and so I have a voice in the rate increases and the improvements that are proposed and/or implemented.

@ Draugnar:

How is tyranny by one man any worse than tyranny by a hundred? Or a hundred thousand? I don't give a damn how the leader comes to power - I care what he does.

@rlumley - agreed. Which is why we need to keep checks and balances and an electoral system in place. If we suddenly had a system where you had the choice between two equally corrupt heads of state and the equally corrupt powerbases that back them and support them, we would be up shit creek. thankfully, I don't think we have total corruption at this point and I do believe that, deluded as they are, most men and women who run for the highest office in america actually do want to serve the American people. Maybe I'm being a but naive, but I HOPE that is the case. Although there have been one or two...

I should say I agree with the tyranny issue. I don't agree with how they come to power if there is no way to remove them from the power or at least remove their inheritors. But then the French showed us that even a monarch can be removed from power. Madame, Monsieur, meet le guilotine...

" I don't think we have total corruption at this point and I do believe that, deluded as they are, most men and women who run for the highest office in america actually do want to serve the American people."

Well I guess that's where we disagree...

So was George W. Bush the totally corrupt one? Or is Barack Obama? I bleiev power went to Bush's head and that he did things that were corrupt by the end, but his reign ended. I don't believe Obama is trying to become the King of America for life or is totally corrupt, but I do believe he is misguided in many of his ideas.

*believe

@ Draugnar: "I also believe that a person's financial exposure should be used as a basis for how much of a say they get, just like in the stock markets. If I have a net worth of $250,000 (I wish), I should get more say than someone who owns a junker, rents their home, and has $25 in their pocket and bank account combined. Likewise, the executive with a networth of $2.5 million should get more say than I do."

Wait, hang on a second here. Have I understood this right? Are you arguing that rich people should get more votes than poor people? (Or that their votes should be worth more, somehow)

Actually, yes I am Jamie. Decisions that would create exposure to risk, which is what electing our officials is, should be weighted by the amount of risk involved. The $9 an hour McDonalds order taker has less to lose boht as a percentage and in total value than the multi-millionaire. so I am a bit radical in that I believe in "one buck, one vote," not "one voice, one vote."

I should add that I believe, in a amnner of speaking, this is already in place through the political party system wherein money gets the word out and gets the votes. So if Bill Gates backs someone, it tends to have more influence than if I back someone else.

*manner

Coupled to your views on inheritance, that is, I think, a very dangerous viewpoint. It would certainly be a radical change in your democracy.

You realise you are basically arguing that rich person not only has the right to pass on that wealth to his descendents, but also to imbue those descendents with greater voting rights?

You are arguing that someone who is wealthy purely because their daddy was wealthy, and who sits on their ass all day doing nothing, should have greater voting rights than someone who is working hard to better themselves but came from a poor background. Is that really your suggestion for making the world a better place?

I'm arguing that it makes it a fairer place. They already have this priviledge within the stock market (one share, one vote) so why not within the government?

It makes it LESS fair, surely? The economy creates inequality, so you want to DOUBLE that inequality by re-shaping the political process based on economic inequality? Have you gone mad?

Does anyone else think Draugnar has gone mad?

I guess it depends on your view of what makes what fair. I think wealth should have privilege and, while I don't think anyone should be denied a voice, I believe that fairness involves having that voice weighted based on potential and net present value. If you like, base it on the earnings reported on the individual's previous 1099 adjusted income after all deductions, not their total net worth. That would force the executives to show their money rather than hide it. they would have to choose between keeping more or having more political clout.

Better yet, base it on their total previous years tax liability. For every dollar the feds kept last year, they get a vote with a guaranteed minimum of one vote or one hundred or something like that.

They ALREADY get priveliges from their wealth - wealth brings all kind of benefits already. Why do the rich NEED another benefit?

You do realise that most people reading this will find your suggestion just as insane as my communism?

And can you confirm that you are arguing that someone who is so poor that they pay no tax should get NO vote at all? What about a household where the husband has a big-paying job and pays quite a lot of tax, but his wife stays at home bringing up the kids and pays much less tax? Your system would, in practice, reduce the political influence of women quite dramatically. You really want to wind democracy back about 200 years?