Which System Would You Choose?

[dkwrtw]

Just not W, Palin, O'Rielly, or the fat L, please...

lol it would be up to the American people really, I'm sure you have faith in them to pick the best leader for their country.

 

[Zorak]

Yeah I like the sound of that, like keep the 4 year term and the elections, but give the leader FULL AUTHORITY of the nation while he is in power.

I'd be so up for that. The ultimate step towards small governance.

 

[dkwrtw]

I'd be so up for that. The ultimate step towards small governance.

Exactly, I think TOO MANY people have too much power, and they all have their own agendas and are working against eachother, it takes too long for any action to be taken when so many people have to be in agreement on what needs to be done, with one guy calling the shots change can happen instantly when it needs to.

 

[Tuffdisc]

Despite its many faults, and the fact you can't please everyone, Democracy, but would like a reform of our system of first past the post, I would prefer Proportional Representation. Don't like the idea of Communism, it is a fascist regime where no one has the right to speak, and their human rights record is terrible

Don't like the idea of Popes and church "running" a country, but I do believe in God
Also, the idea of a monarchy running the country, fair enough, I don't believe that our Queen would be anything like what used to be in days gone past, doesn't run well in my head

 

[Meirionnydd]

I would prefer a dictatorship to be honest. I'd rather have a capable person running the show than millions of imbeciles bickering over what needs to be done.

I'm surprised at how readily people will endorse practices that are not in their self interest.

A dictatorship is by no means the most effective way of running a country. Look at the world right now; which countries have the highest standards of living? Which countries have provisions for such universal rights such as freedom of assembly and speech?

The answer: Liberal Democracies.

A dictator will only run the country in a way that suits them - or an established clique of wealthy and powerful individuals - to the extent where corruption and cronyism will run rampant, as will extrajudicial killings, beatings and torture. Dictatorships also redistribute wealth in such a way that the poor get almost absolutely nothing; the best way to run an authoritarian state is to keep those who can threaten your grip on power (the poor majority) as weak and destitute and possible.

I mean, would you rather be living in Egypt, or the United States?

 

[edgray]

As you probably all know, I would have once claimed anarchy, Libertarian Socialism to be precise. I still favour this form of organisation above any of the other systems mentioned, especially the insane capitalism/democracy which is just one big dysfunctional mess.

However, nowadays I don't believe in any political system. They all are based on outdated ideas of human kind, and massively faulty logic. None of them work in any decent way, none of them account for societal design. None of them are sustainable. None of them really tackle the problems we now know are very solvable.

Politics needs to go. It's a flawed idea in itself. The problems of the human race are purely technical. Politics offers no solutions to these technical problems.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

A dictatorship is by no means the most effective way of running a country. Look at the world right now; which countries have the highest standards of living? Which countries have provisions for such universal rights such as freedom of assembly and speech?

Standards of living measured by what? There's a difference between life value sequence and money value sequence. These days standards of living are measured by some form of monetary standard, which is wrong.

 

[Meirionnydd]

Standards of living measured by what? There's a difference between life value sequence and money value sequence. These days standards of living are measured by some form of monetary standard, which is wrong.

Generally the standard of living is assessed by GNI per capita and the poverty rate of a country. The Human Development Index assesses countries on life expectancy, educational attainment and GNI per capita. A country with scoring highly on these indicators would have a high standard of living.

Do you have any better ideas for measuring standards of living?

 

[edgray]

Do you have any better ideas for measuring standards of living?

Measuring general happiness, stress levels, emotional development, empathy levels, altruism, social health, as well access to healthcare, the provisions necessary for a healthy life, time to spend with family and friends...

... that's just a handful of things society should be gauging. These items belong to a sequence totally ignored by economists: the life sequence of value. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the money sequence of value, as presented by statistics like GNI, GDP etc etc.

Measuring by any economic indicator is highly flawed as this measures none of the above, only the value of money within a given economy.

 

[Zorak]

Measuring general happiness, stress levels, emotional development, empathy levels, altruism, social health, as well access to healthcare, the provisions necessary for a healthy life, time to spend with family and friends...

... that's just a handful of things society should be gauging. These items belong to a sequence totally ignored by economists: the life sequence of value. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the money sequence of value, as presented by statistics like GNI, GDP etc etc.

Measuring by any economic indicator is highly flawed as this measures none of the above, only the value of money within a given economy.

I thought they already did that, along with other factors such as Doctors per person, teachers per student... etc etc

 

[edgray]

I thought they already did that, along with other factors such as Doctors per person, teachers per student... etc etc

there are a few loose indicators that cover small areas of the life sequence of value - but they don't give a good picture in either direction. There could be 50 doctors per person but what does that mean if no one can afford to see them when needed?

In fact, if you look at it in those terms, the more doctors per person, the sicker a society. How could that possibly be a good indicator of a nation's health?

 

[Zorak]

there are a few loose indicators that cover small areas of the life sequence of value - but they don't give a good picture in either direction. There could be 50 doctors per person but what does that mean if no one can afford to see them when needed?

In fact, if you look at it in those terms, the more doctors per person, the sicker a society. How could that possibly be a good indicator of a nation's health?

That's a massive, massive, massive assumption with no basis and I'm quite shocked to hear from you. Are you saying that it's better for a society to have 1 doctor to a milliion patients than 1 to a 100? :willy_nilly:

The point is, there are thousands of variables in these human development\life quality surveys. And they survey a hell of a lot more than you give them credit for.

Of course, I still think they are bollocks. Finland and Iceland are shit hole hippy communes

 

[edgray]

That's a massive, massive, massive assumption with no basis and I'm quite shocked to hear from you. Are you saying that it's better for a society to have 1 doctor to a milliion patients than 1 to a 100? :willy_nilly:

The point is, there are thousands of variables in these human development\life quality surveys. And they survey a hell of a lot more than you give them credit for.

Of course, I still think they are bollocks. Finland and Iceland are shit hole hippy communes

no, it's far better for a society to measure it's value in being able to make sure fewer people NEED medical attention. This is something these types of statistics do not even scratch the surface of.

So no, I'm not saying their should be fewer doctors. What I'm saying is that just citing number of doctors is a shit statistic that just shows how poorly a society is more than anything else.

They survey fuck all, at the end of the day. Economic factors, the value of money and with no decent correlation to the wellbeing of those in the society.

 

[Zorak]

no, it's far better for a society to measure it's value in being able to make sure fewer people NEED medical attention. This is something these types of statistics do not even scratch the surface of.

So no, I'm not saying their should be fewer doctors. What I'm saying is that just citing number of doctors is a shit statistic that just shows how poorly a society is more than anything else.

They survey fuck all, at the end of the day. Economic factors, the value of money and with no decent correlation to the wellbeing of those in the society.

If you can't see the connection between economy and the well-being of society then I can't say much more :dunno

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

no, it's far better for a society to measure it's value in being able to make sure fewer people NEED medical attention. This is something these types of statistics do not even scratch the surface of.

So no, I'm not saying their should be fewer doctors. What I'm saying is that just citing number of doctors is a shit statistic that just shows how poorly a society is more than anything else.

They survey fuck all, at the end of the day. Economic factors, the value of money and with no decent correlation to the wellbeing of those in the society.

:homo: spunk

Money value sequence and life value sequence are often confused. GDP doesn't make me happy, and you'll actually find that people's happiness is actually dropping (particularly in societies like ours) which is no surprise really lol.

 

[edgray]

If you can't see the connection between economy and the well-being of society then I can't say much more :dunno

:24:

take one big look at the US and rethink that opinion.

(no offense to any americans here)

 

[Meirionnydd]

Measuring general happiness, stress levels, emotional development, empathy levels, altruism, social health, as well access to healthcare, the provisions necessary for a healthy life, time to spend with family and friends...

... that's just a handful of things society should be gauging. These items belong to a sequence totally ignored by economists: the life sequence of value. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the money sequence of value, as presented by statistics like GNI, GDP etc etc.

Measuring by any economic indicator is highly flawed as this measures none of the above, only the value of money within a given economy.

There's separate studies and survey's that measure those things that you have mentioned. Obviously, since the statistics have been collated independent of every other factor, they're not exactly useful in gaining an overall picture for standards of living.

The closest thing we have to an official indication of standards of living is the HDI index. And come on, if you were living in a country that had a high life expectancy, literacy rates and a good average income; wouldn't you accept that your country had a higher standard of living compared to a nation that was lacking in these indicators?

And anyway, people who are uneducated, unhealthy and poor are more stressed, have inadequate access to social services, are unhappier and have less time to care for their offspring (leading to poor emotional development). So really, access to wealth is a very important factor here...

 

[edgray]

There's separate studies and survey's that measure those things that you have mentioned. Obviously, since the statistics have been collated independent of every other factor, they're not exactly useful in gaining an overall picture for standards of living.

The closest thing we have to an official indication of standards of living is the HDI index. And come on, if you were living in a country that had a high life expectancy, literacy rates and a good average income; wouldn't you accept that your country had a higher standard of living compared to a nation that was lacking in these indicators?

And anyway, people who are uneducated, unhealthy and poor are more stressed, have inadequate access to social services, are unhappier and have less time to care for their offspring (leading to poor emotional development). So really, access to wealth is a very important factor here...

but don't you see how the statistics collected, going on what you've just said, are truly terrible at gauging a society?

Look at your last paragraph. What that is saying is that the people in a society are poor and needy, and just because the system offers some help, that's going to rank them better? To me all that highlights is a sick society, it contains no measure of health or indicator of happiness whatsoever. It says this particular society feels a little bad for it's poor, so offers a little help.

As it turns out, access to wealth has nothing to do with it. Being poor in itself isn't bad for you, FEELING poor is. This is what causes the stress etc etc. This help mentioned previously might actually INCREASE that feeling of poverty, and in turn increase the stress and illness that comes from it.

Your HDI point is a pretty good one. There are certain factors that the HDI highlights. But again, if you look at the HDI for 2010: the US comes in at number 4. Yet they live shorter lives, suffer more stress and illness etc compared to most other western nations and yet economic factors put them out at the top. How is that possibly a good indicator other than gauging how rich a country is?

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

What about high suicide rates? One of the largest is America followed closely by Australia.

 

[edgray]

What about high suicide rates? One of the largest is America followed closely by Australia.

No the US has a reasonably low suicide rate compared to many other countries.