NationStates Jolt Archive

Just that.

Does any political or economic system really work, or can it?

Or are people just in general flawed and imperfect, and therefore can never attain a utopia?

The fact that we're all here, living and breathing and posting to a discussion board over international boundaries, would attest to the fact that the world's system as we know it does indeed "work".

A utopia could never be attained, though. Too many people for that.

Switzerland and Norway seem to do pretty well, what do you mean by "work" though? The swiss want nothing to do with the rest of the world, they may as well be aliens. They have a totally different culture to everyone else, which is why their political system doesn't work for anyone else.

BUt are the Swiss "sucessful"? What do we even mean by that?

I'd ask, are most swiss people happy?

The answer is yes. But it's the same answer in most countries. Happiness isn't generated by the system, but by the tiny things that go on in our lives.

A working system is one which allows us to be happy every day.

but how is it working?

yes, by your proof the internet works, international communication is possible, but how is that proof that the modern ideals of the world are succeeding?

BUt are the Swiss "sucessful"? What do we even mean by that?

I'd ask, are most swiss people happy?

The answer is yes. But it's the same answer in most countries. Happiness isn't generated by the system, but by the tiny things that go on in our lives.

A working system is one which allows us to be happy every day.

Thats a really interesting way to look at it. Thanks!!!!

No ideal system works, for one simple reason, the world is too complex with too many unforseen factors. It is virtually impossile to create an ideal system taking into considereation everything.

On order to make an ideal system you would have to simply everything, for example a very small commnity with no outside pressure could work with anarchy. Or a communism with practically unlimited resources so that inefficiencey and lazy exploitation were no problem, and corruption unnecessary. Or a dictatorship could work if you defined 'working' to satisfy only the dictator himself. Or such similar construct.

So what we should aim for is a pragmatic and adaptive system. Like the capitalistic democracy that are capable of turning greed into productivity and give people a fair amount of personal, political and economic freedom.

Just that.

Does any political or economic system really work, or can it?

Or are people just in general flawed and imperfect, and therefore can never attain a utopia?

Well most (all?) of them DO work. Just not perfectly.

The thing to remember is not that humans are flawed, but that humans are ingenious. Whatever system is developed, some human is going to find a way to game it (manipulate it). Systems break down when the level of manipulation excedes the amount of slop in the system, the more tightly engineered the system the less distortion it can withstand. Remember that whatever one human can design, another can find a way to break.

I have great faith in my system, Auto-Industrialization. Robots do everything! Yay!

In our systems, don't we decide if a thing is "working" (such as our political systems) when the majority are in agreement? If that is the criteria, then for the majority of people in this world, things are definately NOT working. Instead, we see wealth concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and:

-Half the world -- nearly three billion people -- live on less than two dollars a day.
-The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the poorest 48 nations (i.e. a quarter of the world's countries) is less than the wealth of the world's three richest people combined.
-Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names.
-Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn't happen.
(http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty.asp)

These stats address the world as a whole, and it cuts accross political lines...showing us that no system in the world has been able to create a utopia. Unfree Person said that there were too many people for this too happen... but it has been proven again and again that (for example) there is enough food (as well as other resources) for EVERYONE to live (not richly) with enough. It is the unfair distribution of resources that concentrates wealth so outrageously in few hands. Those of us who live in wealthy, industrialised nations...do we really need the latest fashions...the latest IKEA furniture, the latest laptop and mp3 player? Why do we think it's our god-given right to create so much waste (my own province of Alberta for example creates more waste per capita than anywhere in the U.S)? Why are we so unwilling to give up a few luxuries if it would mean there would be more for the poorest in this world to live on?

That said, even if you and I right now gave up the frills and lived a little closer to earth, that wouldn't automatically shift wealth to the poorer nations. Our governments, democratic, communist, socialist, facist, whatever... ALL need a rehaul, and the only ones who are going to do it are the people who CREATED those governments...US (not U.S, us). More and more movements around the world for social and economic equality are being started from the bottom up. Every revolution that has ever happened so far was started by middle-class, educated people with their own agenda, speaking for the poor or disenfranchised. Now those people are speaking for themselves.

No system works perfectly. No system will ever work to everyone's satisfaction, but let's try to find a way of accomodating different systems, different ideas, and different people so that we can all manage to put food on our tables. Screw the mp3 players:).

My people are told regularly that our Communist system works, and that it is the Imperialist economic blockades and natural disasters which have upset economic progress.

What is vitally important is that national pride is at a high, then united together we shall stand!

Long live our Socialist Motherland!

People's Republic of Scotistan Special Envoy to Online Forums

By the way...I'm a Prioritarian in terms of economic equality... here are some good definitions taken from: http://www.newint.org/index4.html

JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS
The greatest influence on contemporary thinking about equality is John Rawls. His 1971 book A Theory of Justice has been a springboard for other connected theories and counter theories. His ‘justice as fairness’ theory is based on the idea that everyone has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties. In this he includes equality of opportunity. But he goes on to say that social or economic inequalities have to be justified in terms of the benefits they bring to the least advantaged. This is his famous ‘difference principle.’

EXAMPLE: Justice as fairness could take the form of needs-based grants for students.


UTILITY
Utilitarians argue that redistribution should not prioritize minorities but be based on what will afford the greatest good to the most people. This thinking is based on Jeremy Bentham’s idea ‘that each is to count for one, no-one more than one’. From a utilitarian point of view it doesn’t make sense for a greater number of people to give up benefits for the sake of the fewer just because the benefits to the worst-off will be greater. Utilitarianism is therefore a kind of ‘majority rule’ – even though this might be bad for minorities. Modern welfare-utilitarians such as RM Hare, however, argue that redistributing wealth reduces inequality and creates general ‘utility’ (ie happiness) by diminishing envy.

EXAMPLE: An utilitarian approach to taxation might keep it at a moderate level for the middle-income earning majority even if that meant fewer benefits for the very poor or higher taxes for the very rich.


PRIORITY
Many people who consider themselves egalitarians are actually prioritarians. They argue that improvements in the welfare of the worst-off have priority. The individual with a more urgent claim has priority over the individual with a less urgent claim. According to philosopher Thomas Nagel: ‘What makes a system egalitarian is the priorities it gives to the claims of those whose overall life prospects put them at the bottom.’

Once the needs of these are met, then improvements can be made for the slightly better-off, and so on up the scale of privilege. Priority does not concern itself with the numbers of people benefiting or the scale of benefit.

EXAMPLE: Priority, on a global scale, could involve cancelling Third World debt and tackling Africa’s aids crisis.


MARXISM
For Marxists, capitalism is the enemy of equality in that it depends upon the exploitation of workers to create ‘surplus value’ or profit. But since the collapse of the Soviet Union few people believe that there is a viable socio-economic alternative to capitalism. Marxist thinkers like Gerald Cohen and Alex Callinicos reluctantly acknowledge that, for now, ‘market socialism’ offers a halfway house, which could combine collective ownership of the means of production with the market’s ‘supposed superiority to other forms in the efficient allocation of resources’. For radical thinker Philippe Van Parijs, jobs are resources to be shared equally and all should be paid, whether they have work or not.

EXAMPLE: Van Parijs proposes a universal basic income equivalent to half per-capita GDP of the country in which the citizen lives.


Capabilities‘Equality of what?’ asks economist Amartya Sen. His answer involves what he calls ‘capabilities to achieve functionings’. It’s about creating conditions in which people can realize their ‘capabilities’ which will inevitably be different and have different outcomes due to diversity of human nature and experience. It involves the same basic elements, though, like: being able to live a life of a normal length; having bodily health and integrity; freedom of movement, expression and affiliation; freedom of attachment and so forth. It may involve resources, but it goes beyond them too.

EXAMPLE: A has a car while B has a bicycle. In itself, this doesn’t matter because B prefers to cycle. But it does matter if A’s car makes it impossible for B to cycle safely.


LIBERTARIANISM
Libertarian Robert Nozick argues that there is nothing wrong with inequality. Inequality is natural, inevitable and may even be a good thing – a spur to ambition, competition and achievement. But policies to create equality are harmful: they threaten liberty and individual rights, penalize achievement and lead to a general ‘levelling down’ of society. Nozick argues for a ‘minimal state’ with no duty of equal care or concern beyond keeping law and order. Taxation, he says, is equivalent to ‘forced labour’. His ideas have been quite influential – especially in the US.

EXAMPLE: Health and education would be left to market forces, but there would be a publicly funded police and penal system. Inheritance tax would be abolished forthwith.



Difference
Iris Marion Young takes issue with the ‘abstract universalism’ that she says dogs most liberal thinking about equality. It makes assumptions that belong to the dominant group and is ‘difference blind’, failing to recognize long-term effects of oppression on groups such as women, ethnic minorities, gays and so forth. Assimilation is not the way to achieve equality, she says. Equality is best achieved among socially and culturally different groups by respecting and acknowledging each other’s differences. Young and others argue for a principle of group representation and for group-differentiated policies. Groups might be able to veto specific policies that affect them directly. Such multicultural approaches have been criticized by liberal thinkers such as Brian Barry who insist on universal egalitarian principles.

EXAMPLE: Group-differentiated policies exist in India where there are different codes of family law for Hindus, Muslims and Christians.

(sorry for the long post)

I have great faith in my system, Auto-Industrialization. Robots do everything! Yay!

Coughthesecondrennaissancecough

No system is perfect, 'cuz no matter how you figure it, somebody is going to find something to complain about.