NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been thinking lately, alot of noise has been made of the 'state control of life' under socialist states in history and even currently, but are we ignoring important aspects of human nature in this? Do you think that naturally people like to have a direction and certainly of life that socialist countries bring? With cradle to the grave support, when your life is made up for you from your birth and your assured of employment and future. In modern what I like to call 'managerial' capitalist society, employment is often unstable and speculative, the responsibility is on the individual for results on not on following set regulations in the workplace.

I for one am a university student who does casual retail work also, and at times I think to myself that I would prefer to have a life-time job with set wages and regulations, that I have certainty for my life, even if I don't have choice I personally would wish for such a life. I myself have massive responsibility, I have thousands of debt in uni hecs fees which I must pay back eventually, I have high expectations put on me by family, friends for being at uni, and sometimes honestly I would wish that I could just have a set job and not so much pressure, just a set routine daily. Now this has got me thinking, alot of made in Soviet Union, East Germany etc that the people were oppressed by threat of death, have people actually put any thought into the fact that these people were actually used to this pattern of behavior and work and didn't like change, that the government would always look after them, all they had to do was their task. It reminds me of doing the public sector changes in Australia as a study topic in government at uni, since the late 80s 'managerial' reforms took place in which usually public servants had life employment, all they had to do was pass an exam and they get a job for life, these days their bosses are more like private sector managers, they are under stress to produce results on an individual level, and if they fail it's the individuals fault, where once the public service was about serving, it's now about surviving.

I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but I certainly do, call it state restriction or whatnot, but a certain aspect of human nature finds a community unity in such an environment, when wealth divides the community down the middle, a society when all you have to do is your task and the government will take care of the rest. Today's modern system espouses flexibility and choice in our lives, to succeed and fail based on us individually, so if we fail we are at fault, not a system when we are equal as a community. Do we as humans seek to release ourselves from the constant stress and burdens of responsibility heaped upon our shoulders from a capitalist system, do we naturally like to have certainty?

I have been thinking lately, alot of noise has been made of the 'state control of life' under socialist states in history and even currently, but are we ignoring important aspects of human nature in this? Do you think that naturally people like to have a direction and certainly of life that socialist countries bring? With cradle to the grave support, when your life is made up for you from your birth and your assured of employment and future. In modern what I like to call 'managerial' capitalist society, employment is often unstable and speculative, the responsibility is on the individual for results on not on following set regulations in the workplace.

I for one am a university student who does casual retail work also, and at times I think to myself that I would prefer to have a life-time job with set wages and regulations, that I have certainty for my life, even if I don't have choice I personally would wish for such a life. I myself have massive responsibility, I have thousands of debt in uni hecs fees which I must pay back eventually, I have high expectations put on me by family, friends for being at uni, and sometimes honestly I would wish that I could just have a set job and not so much pressure, just a set routine daily. Now this has got me thinking, alot of made in Soviet Union, East Germany etc that the people were oppressed by threat of death, have people actually put any thought into the fact that these people were actually used to this pattern of behavior and work and didn't like change, that the government would always look after them, all they had to do was their task. It reminds me of doing the public sector changes in Australia as a study topic in government at uni, since the late 80s 'managerial' reforms took place in which usually public servants had life employment, all they had to do was pass an exam and they get a job for life, these days their bosses are more like private sector managers, they are under stress to produce results on an individual level, and if they fail it's the individuals fault, where once the public service was about serving, it's now about surviving.

I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but I certainly do, call it state restriction or whatnot, but a certain aspect of human nature finds a community unity in such an environment, when wealth divides the community down the middle, a society when all you have to do is your task and the government will take care of the rest. Today's modern system espouses flexibility and choice in our lives, to succeed and fail based on us individually, so if we fail we are at fault, not a system when we are equal as a community. Do we as humans seek to release ourselves from the constant stress and burdens of responsibility heaped upon our shoulders from a capitalist system, do we naturally like to have certainty?

No, we as humans seek to decide our own fate & destiny.
Seriously, what is so great about being assured to work in some low-paying job. All State Control does is guarantee who's going to be rich & who's going to be poor.

"He who lets the world...choose his plan of life for him, has no need of any other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation." -J.S. Mill

If I had a guaranteed job with a guaranteed amount of income regardless of whether I produce 100 widgets (the required amount from a hard days work) or I produce 50 widgets or 25 widgets or just 1 widget, what incentive is there for me to produce 100 widgets? Better yet...what incentive is there for me to figure out a way to produce 500 widgets in 1 hour without breaking a sweat.

In principle your ideas sound good, but human nature makes it so that it doesn't work out.:D

Constant subordination to the need for profit in the job is a substantial impediment to freedom. The "certainty" here is not really a lack of choice: it is the prevention of somebody else making a certain choice for you, the restriction of the authority of the employer over the worker. The worker gains control over her life; she does not lose it.

But while economic security is better in that respect than the alternative, the best solution to the problem, the one that can solve the problem of alienated labor instead of simply pacifying it somewhat, is to give the worker genuine control over her own labor.

Self-management is the beginning here, but I think only the possibilities of at least partial communism can truly accomplish this emancipation, because only then can the individual's freedom take precedence over her economic role.

I have been thinking lately, alot of noise has been made of the 'state control of life' under socialist states in history and even currently, but are we ignoring important aspects of human nature in this? Do you think that naturally people like to have a direction and certainly of life that socialist countries bring? With cradle to the grave support, when your life is made up for you from your birth and your assured of employment and future. In modern what I like to call 'managerial' capitalist society, employment is often unstable and speculative, the responsibility is on the individual for results on not on following set regulations in the workplace.

I for one am a university student who does casual retail work also, and at times I think to myself that I would prefer to have a life-time job with set wages and regulations, that I have certainty for my life, even if I don't have choice I personally would wish for such a life. I myself have massive responsibility, I have thousands of debt in uni hecs fees which I must pay back eventually, I have high expectations put on me by family, friends for being at uni, and sometimes honestly I would wish that I could just have a set job and not so much pressure, just a set routine daily. Now this has got me thinking, alot of made in Soviet Union, East Germany etc that the people were oppressed by threat of death, have people actually put any thought into the fact that these people were actually used to this pattern of behavior and work and didn't like change, that the government would always look after them, all they had to do was their task. It reminds me of doing the public sector changes in Australia as a study topic in government at uni, since the late 80s 'managerial' reforms took place in which usually public servants had life employment, all they had to do was pass an exam and they get a job for life, these days their bosses are more like private sector managers, they are under stress to produce results on an individual level, and if they fail it's the individuals fault, where once the public service was about serving, it's now about surviving.

I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but I certainly do, call it state restriction or whatnot, but a certain aspect of human nature finds a community unity in such an environment, when wealth divides the community down the middle, a society when all you have to do is your task and the government will take care of the rest. Today's modern system espouses flexibility and choice in our lives, to succeed and fail based on us individually, so if we fail we are at fault, not a system when we are equal as a community. Do we as humans seek to release ourselves from the constant stress and burdens of responsibility heaped upon our shoulders from a capitalist system, do we naturally like to have certainty?

Suprisingly you talk about having a job for life and such, but in most socialist societies, unemployement is higher than in places like the US. I also agree with Siylva, what's so great about working some minimum wage job? And what is wrong with getting results out of someone?

If I'm paying you to do a job, I want my money's worth. If teacher "A" has a class average score of 95% and teacher "B" only has a class average of 65%, why am I going to reward him with "Life-time employment"? No I'm going to fire him and give his money to teacher "A". I also don't see what is so great about being punished for being successful.Taxing the rich more because they are rich is absurd. How about we tax the smart because they are smart while we're in the process of punishing those with initiative. The higher your IQ the more we tax your Income. Afterall, it's not fair that the rich have money and I don't and it isn't fair the smart are more intelligent than I. It couldn't possibly be because, perhaps I'm just not applying myself hard enough. No no it's always the 'systems' fault. Sorry Milton Friedman was right when he said a truely free-market society is best for mankind.

Ohh yeah and Communism worked out great for Soviet Russia and East Germany. Just like it's doing wonders for Cuba and North Korea.

Ohh yeah and Communism worked out great for Soviet Russia and East Germany. Just like it's doing wonders for Cuba and North Korea.
One might point out that the systems in the USSR wasn't 'true' Communism, but the perversion of it put in place by Stalin, which was a hideous totalitarian state far from the ideals of Marx.
I produce 100 widgets
Random thought: You mean the weird plastic balls put in some beer cans?

That's true. Stalin was quite the paranoid genocidal maniac.

I have been thinking lately, alot of noise has been made of the 'state control of life' under socialist states in history and even currently, but are we ignoring important aspects of human nature in this? Do you think that naturally people like to have a direction and certainly of life that socialist countries bring? With cradle to the grave support, when your life is made up for you from your birth and your assured of employment and future. In modern what I like to call 'managerial' capitalist society, employment is often unstable and speculative, the responsibility is on the individual for results on not on following set regulations in the workplace.

I for one am a university student who does casual retail work also, and at times I think to myself that I would prefer to have a life-time job with set wages and regulations, that I have certainty for my life, even if I don't have choice I personally would wish for such a life. I myself have massive responsibility, I have thousands of debt in uni hecs fees which I must pay back eventually, I have high expectations put on me by family, friends for being at uni, and sometimes honestly I would wish that I could just have a set job and not so much pressure, just a set routine daily. Now this has got me thinking, alot of made in Soviet Union, East Germany etc that the people were oppressed by threat of death, have people actually put any thought into the fact that these people were actually used to this pattern of behavior and work and didn't like change, that the government would always look after them, all they had to do was their task. It reminds me of doing the public sector changes in Australia as a study topic in government at uni, since the late 80s 'managerial' reforms took place in which usually public servants had life employment, all they had to do was pass an exam and they get a job for life, these days their bosses are more like private sector managers, they are under stress to produce results on an individual level, and if they fail it's the individuals fault, where once the public service was about serving, it's now about surviving.

I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but I certainly do, call it state restriction or whatnot, but a certain aspect of human nature finds a community unity in such an environment, when wealth divides the community down the middle, a society when all you have to do is your task and the government will take care of the rest. Today's modern system espouses flexibility and choice in our lives, to succeed and fail based on us individually, so if we fail we are at fault, not a system when we are equal as a community. Do we as humans seek to release ourselves from the constant stress and burdens of responsibility heaped upon our shoulders from a capitalist system, do we naturally like to have certainty?


I’m not a communist or socialist. I never had a life in such a country and I prefer our system.

But I think the following about that one:

You mentioned ‘choice’. You have choice, you will have choice. I have that choice as well. I went to good schools and I can have a nice job with choices.
I even have the choice to drop my current work and do something different.

For my work, I partly, analyse people their job in entire Europe.

Sometimes I analyse labours their tasks. People that work on assembly lines, building cars, tires or check bottles of cola.

Believe me, those people their choices are very limited. Sure they can quit their job, but if they want some nice money they will have to do another ‘dull’ job.

It is almost impossible for them to have the opportunity to do my job. Almost none of them will be a surgeon, a pilot, an army general.

They enter the factory at 18 and will leave it at 60 something.

I respect those people a lot. I don’t think their task is minor. But I am not prepared to do it for a long time (I do it for a few hours or days, but that’s part of my task).
I am not prepared to do for a long time, just because I have a choice. They don’t. They can stop at Goodyear but have to move to Coca Cola, doing similar work. 99% will do that for the rest of their entire working life.

Are they less smart than me? No. At least not necessarily. Lots of them had not the opportunity to go to university or college. Whatever the reason is: lack of money, their parents were already doing similar tasks thus they were not that motivated by them, didn’t thought about their future when they were teenagers, etc…

So yes, in a capitalist environment people have choice, but only if you went to school, have money or were just lucky. Tons of people do not have a real choice.

Then the motivation. Yes, I agree with our mindset, we would produce less, work less hard if we are paid the same salary. But that it is not the case in a communist country. Their motivation is not centred on their own personal being but on the community. And what’s good for the community is good for them in the end.

Communist countries are capable of achieving enormous results. The former Soviets were first in space, had the first man in orbit, etc…

Medical services are far much better for the average Cuban citizen than for the average Joe in the much richer and bigger neighbour US of A.

Currently in Europe and US, we are more than afraid for the economic power of China.

Overall the communist countries will disappear, but that’s partly because the capitalist ones. Economical, political and military boycotts do work.
I don’t love the communist system, till now it seems it is not working well without a lot repression. But that will not say I adore the capitalist one.

I am not smart enough to think about a third road.

Just to take point, the Soviet Union had full employment, and so do all socialist states.

Just to take point, the Soviet Union had full employment, and so do all socialist states.
Socialist =/= communist...

"Is it true the pay is unequal with work in USSR?"
"On the contrary, the pay is very accurate! They pretend to pay, and we pretend to work."

Socialist =/= communist...

And the Soviet Union was neither.

Well nice to see my topic was been hijacked without anyone having apparently read what I wrote.

Well nice to see my topic was been hijacked without anyone having apparently read what I wrote.

I did, and replied to it.

I guess my question was not so aimed at marxist ideology as bureaucratic administrationism, and a question as to people actually like the certainty of having such pressures of life removed from their decision making process.

If I had a guaranteed job with a guaranteed amount of income regardless of whether I produce 100 widgets (the required amount from a hard days work) or I produce 50 widgets or 25 widgets or just 1 widget, what incentive is there for me to produce 100 widgets?
Uh... torture? Being lobotomized? Being hanged? Being shot? Or fervor swelling in your chest being part of the great socialist revolution?

I have been thinking lately, alot of noise has been made of the 'state control of life' under socialist states in history and even currently, but are we ignoring important aspects of human nature in this? Do you think that naturally people like to have a direction and certainly of life that socialist countries bring? With cradle to the grave support, when your life is made up for you from your birth and your assured of employment and future. In modern what I like to call 'managerial' capitalist society, employment is often unstable and speculative, the responsibility is on the individual for results on not on following set regulations in the workplace. To some extent yes. People like stability. Stability is something that has a trade-off though, and I think that your opponents find this trade off high.

I for one am a university student who does casual retail work also, and at times I think to myself that I would prefer to have a life-time job with set wages and regulations, that I have certainty for my life, even if I don't have choice I personally would wish for such a life. I myself have massive responsibility, I have thousands of debt in uni hecs fees which I must pay back eventually, I have high expectations put on me by family, friends for being at uni, and sometimes honestly I would wish that I could just have a set job and not so much pressure, just a set routine daily. Now this has got me thinking, alot of made in Soviet Union, East Germany etc that the people were oppressed by threat of death, have people actually put any thought into the fact that these people were actually used to this pattern of behavior and work and didn't like change, that the government would always look after them, all they had to do was their task. It reminds me of doing the public sector changes in Australia as a study topic in government at uni, since the late 80s 'managerial' reforms took place in which usually public servants had life employment, all they had to do was pass an exam and they get a job for life, these days their bosses are more like private sector managers, they are under stress to produce results on an individual level, and if they fail it's the individuals fault, where once the public service was about serving, it's now about surviving. Yeah, in some ways I don't want certainty. There is the fear that nothing will get better or ever change and that where I end up will be a bad place. Not only that but I would like to have more control over my destiny, and I feel that this would be found in an unstable changing environment. Set wages and work sounds a bit too much like serfdom. You say that you want to get away from responsibility though? Some of your responsibilities are the ones that you have accepted. Really, you only have this feeling because you have some level of potential and others recognize it and do not want it to go to waste. I would really see a society as dystopic if it came without responsibility for these things though, sort of like some form of caste system or some such. I'd say that the reason things change is because jobs were not created for workers, they were created to do work. This results orientation and instability tends to come with the advantage of making change and improvement.

I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but I certainly do, call it state restriction or whatnot, but a certain aspect of human nature finds a community unity in such an environment, when wealth divides the community down the middle, a society when all you have to do is your task and the government will take care of the rest. Today's modern system espouses flexibility and choice in our lives, to succeed and fail based on us individually, so if we fail we are at fault, not a system when we are equal as a community. Do we as humans seek to release ourselves from the constant stress and burdens of responsibility heaped upon our shoulders from a capitalist system, do we naturally like to have certainty?
Sure an aspect of human nature would like that, it still influences our thoughts today. I would say to some extent yes, but that certainty, and stress-free lives without responsibility comes costly and is perhaps the worst thing we could do. In a system like that which you espouse we have stagnancy as no longer do we seek to make things better, no longer do we strive and struggle for better, and thus we decline. This means to me, that quality declines as nobody cares, that quantity declines as results mean less, and that freedom dies as we get locked into a rigid structure where the responsibility that belongs to a person is usurped from him. To me I see a dystopic tragedy in this system.

Constant subordination to the need for profit in the job is a substantial impediment to freedom. The "certainty" here is not really a lack of choice: it is the prevention of somebody else making a certain choice for you, the restriction of the authority of the employer over the worker. The worker gains control over her life; she does not lose it. Accountability for the world is a necessary impediment to freedom, just as the need to eat is as well. Profit can NEVER be ignored, the reason is simple: profit reflect resources, if one ignores resources then one lowers everyone's quality of life by over utilizing resources where they are least beneficial. This mis-coordination ultimately means a totally messed up system. The certainty is a lack of choice, unless you think that you can be a teacher if everyone else has been locked into their jobs for life? Unless you think we can pay wages for no work done on a continual consistent basis and still maintain the things we value? If you think either then you miss the picture. The worker who has the job does gain greater control, but this comes at the loss of the worker that wants change as stagnant societal positions come at the cost of freedom.

But while economic security is better in that respect than the alternative, the best solution to the problem, the one that can solve the problem of alienated labor instead of simply pacifying it somewhat, is to give the worker genuine control over her own labor. Somehow I have grown to distrust democracy. I think it is because I recognize my fellow men tend to be a bunch of idiots. To be honest, I would rather have the profit seeking manager rule over me, at least his intentions are more noble and would seem to work better at meritocratic measures. Say what you will about nepotism and sycophants, I just think that cronyism is a big big problem in all democracies, bigger than could be found in most more hierarchical systems.

Self-management is the beginning here, but I think only the possibilities of at least partial communism can truly accomplish this emancipation, because only then can the individual's freedom take precedence over her economic role. Communism is the death of liberty because it seeks the death of accountability. One cannot be a free individual but insulated from the results of their choices so much, such an inherent contradiction is unworkable. Freedom cannot ignore economics either, just like a man in the wild must subordinate himself to the needs of nature.

Are they less smart than me? No. At least not necessarily. Lots of them had not the opportunity to go to university or college. Whatever the reason is: lack of money, their parents were already doing similar tasks thus they were not that motivated by them, didn’t thought about their future when they were teenagers, etc… Well, the lack of money option can often be dealt with through loans. The other 2 aren't lacking opportunities but rather choices. They chose not to look into college, and they chose their parents profession.

So yes, in a capitalist environment people have choice, but only if you went to school, have money or were just lucky. Tons of people do not have a real choice. Well, it also depends on how easy it is to set up an independent enterprise. They can also try to become a small business owner if they save up the money, I believe that a few Asians around the area I live have done that. Not only that but they could actually become a non-traditional student as well and try to get another source of living that way. I would say that most people simply underestimate their choices and thus remove them and ultimately deny themselves the opportunity to act. One thing I have heard of affecting a person's success in the world is their locus of control, if people think they are not in control of the world then they won't take advantage of the opportunities they have, if they think they have control they will more likely take opportunities and have greater success.

Then the motivation. Yes, I agree with our mindset, we would produce less, work less hard if we are paid the same salary. But that it is not the case in a communist country. Their motivation is not centred on their own personal being but on the community. And what’s good for the community is good for them in the end. Creating such a culture is difficult if not impossible. Most people's idea of a group is rather small compared to the number of people in society and the benefits of their labor will be rather diffuse. Either we will have to brainwash people to keep them from slacking, or we will have to lose the technological advantages that are found by having groups of our size together.

Communist countries are capable of achieving enormous results. The former Soviets were first in space, had the first man in orbit, etc… Yes and that was through focusing all of their efforts on rocketry, capitalist nations actually did things that served their people, as noted in the kitchen debate, and they still had the first man on the moon and in the long run did better things for their people. The Soviets were not very good at making the world work for their people, this includes the various price miscalculations, farmers feeding their pigs bread because grain was more expensive and shortages, as well as quality problems, such as how the former Soviet union had a massive problem with television fires killing people.

Medical services are far much better for the average Cuban citizen than for the average Joe in the much richer and bigger neighbour US of A. And that is the one thing that Cuba has..... other than whatever natural resources there. Not only that but the US health care system really was not designed that well either, it needs an overhaul of some form.

Currently in Europe and US, we are more than afraid for the economic power of China. China isn't communist. They recognized that their system failed and have become a capitalistic nation. Calling them communist today is not correct at all.

Overall the communist countries will disappear, but that’s partly because the capitalist ones. Economical, political and military boycotts do work.
I don’t love the communist system, till now it seems it is not working well without a lot repression. But that will not say I adore the capitalist one. Well, I would say it is mostly because their systems fail. It happened in the USSR, it happened in China, it happened in North Korea, it happened in Zimbabwe, it is happening in Venezuela as inflation and shortages take effect.

I am not smart enough to think about a third road.
The major worry I have about 3rd road is that I don't trust the government to run extensive intervention effectively and can easily see it doing so to help entrenched elites.

Profit can NEVER be ignored, the reason is simple: profit reflect resources, if one ignores resources then one lowers everyone's quality of life by over utilizing resources where they are least beneficial.

The maximally "efficient" use of resources for the mass production of goods does not seem a particularly important element of "quality of life" to me. Basic control over how one lives one's life is certainly far more important.

The certainty is a lack of choice, unless you think that you can be a teacher if everyone else has been locked into their jobs for life?

Who's stopping you?

Unless you think we can pay wages for no work done on a continual consistent basis and still maintain the things we value?

Possibly. What is required is the redemption of labor from its present state, one aspect of which is the emancipation of the worker from economic compulsion, but which cannot stop there.

The real question is whether labor in the context of a modern post-industrial economy can ever approach the status of an activity defined by its internal goods rather than one compelled by economic insecurity. Many kinds of productive activity are clearly done without "incentives," and under different conditions that list could probably be expanded substantially.

The obvious succeeding question, of course, is what to do if it can't be. I generally say that radical changes to the economic structure should be continued until it can be... but then, I am an absolutist on this question, and I am no longer certain that the absolutism is completely justified.

But the reasoning is basically as follows: the goods of productivity tend to be artificial and non-essential (beyond basic necessities, of course), while the goods of activity, of free, unalienated labor, are the sort that can give human life a general character of happiness and freedom.

as stagnant societal positions come at the cost of freedom.

Whose freedom?

To be honest, I would rather have the profit seeking manager rule over me

That's a bad choice, for the simple reason that the public good pursued by social control includes you, and the private good pursued by a "profit seeking manager" does not... but you misinterpreted me, so the entire question is irrelevant.

To give the democratic state control over one's labor is not all that much intrinsically less alienating than to give it to the capitalist. The only real difference is that there is a meaningful sense of contribution to collective well-being. That is why I refered to giving the worker control of her labor.

Individually.

Communism is the death of liberty because it seeks the death of accountability.

Only the "accountability" imposed by the controllers of wealth.

Freedom cannot ignore economics either

"Ignore", no. But freedom requires non-subordination to economics. It requires that our lives are not controlled by our economic roles.

I guess my question was not so aimed at marxist ideology as bureaucratic administrationism, and a question as to people actually like the certainty of having such pressures of life removed from their decision making process.

We've invented religions to do the same thing. Why not invent a secular version :p

I have been thinking lately, alot of noise has been made of the 'state control of life' under socialist states in history and even currently, but are we ignoring important aspects of human nature in this? Do you think that naturally people like to have a direction and certainly of life that socialist countries bring? With cradle to the grave support, when your life is made up for you from your birth and your assured of employment and future. In modern what I like to call 'managerial' capitalist society, employment is often unstable and speculative, the responsibility is on the individual for results on not on following set regulations in the workplace.

I for one am a university student who does casual retail work also, and at times I think to myself that I would prefer to have a life-time job with set wages and regulations, that I have certainty for my life, even if I don't have choice I personally would wish for such a life. I myself have massive responsibility, I have thousands of debt in uni hecs fees which I must pay back eventually, I have high expectations put on me by family, friends for being at uni, and sometimes honestly I would wish that I could just have a set job and not so much pressure, just a set routine daily. Now this has got me thinking, alot of made in Soviet Union, East Germany etc that the people were oppressed by threat of death, have people actually put any thought into the fact that these people were actually used to this pattern of behavior and work and didn't like change, that the government would always look after them, all they had to do was their task. It reminds me of doing the public sector changes in Australia as a study topic in government at uni, since the late 80s 'managerial' reforms took place in which usually public servants had life employment, all they had to do was pass an exam and they get a job for life, these days their bosses are more like private sector managers, they are under stress to produce results on an individual level, and if they fail it's the individuals fault, where once the public service was about serving, it's now about surviving.

I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but I certainly do, call it state restriction or whatnot, but a certain aspect of human nature finds a community unity in such an environment, when wealth divides the community down the middle, a society when all you have to do is your task and the government will take care of the rest. Today's modern system espouses flexibility and choice in our lives, to succeed and fail based on us individually, so if we fail we are at fault, not a system when we are equal as a community. Do we as humans seek to release ourselves from the constant stress and burdens of responsibility heaped upon our shoulders from a capitalist system, do we naturally like to have certainty?

You have drawn a false dichotomy: the pressures of tradition and society are not solely eliminated by completely succombing to tradition and society.

I cannot find these thoughts any less than disturbing: you consider opting for the life of an ox, and there is little save suicide that is worse.

To answer your final question, of course we like certainty, that doesn't mean we want to be ruled by it. I do not think that you have quite the seasoning to truly appreciate what you are espousing.

The maximally "efficient" use of resources for the mass production of goods does not seem a particularly important element of "quality of life" to me. Basic control over how one lives one's life is certainly far more important. However, basic control cannot ignore the efficient use of resources as subsistence farming is not freedom. Really though, I would say that basic control


Who's stopping you? The fact that all of the other opportunities for teaching have been taken. Your actions as a teacher would not be needed or even wanted and this would be problematic.


Possibly. What is required is the redemption of labor from its present state, one aspect of which is the emancipation of the worker from economic compulsion, but which cannot stop there. Economic compulsion is simply a state of nature though, eat or die was a part of the existence of primitive man. No matter what the ideal is, that aspect must be remembered.

The real question is whether labor in the context of a modern post-industrial economy can ever approach the status of an activity defined by its internal goods rather than one compelled by economic insecurity. Many kinds of productive activity are clearly done without "incentives," and under different conditions that list could probably be expanded substantially.
One thing is that you need to make sure that your terms are clear, internal goods is not clear, do you mean the exchange of goods inside an economy or do you mean inherent virtue in action. For the sake of continuity I would assume the latter as the former although making more sense given what goods are usually considered in economics, does not sound like an argument you would make. I would argue that the non-compulsory actions within the economy though, tend to be the most frivolous. You have just accounted for flash games and modifications to pre-existing software but not most productivity and creation. Really though, "incentives" are reasons for all actions, if there was no reason to act we would never do so.

The obvious succeeding question, of course, is what to do if it can't be. I generally say that radical changes to the economic structure should be continued until it can be... but then, I am an absolutist on this question, and I am no longer certain that the absolutism is completely justified.
Continued until it can be....? I am not sure I tend to be an absolutist so if we speak on that you will only speak past me as if I did tend towards an absolute extreme, it would not be in your favor I am somewhat certain.

But the reasoning is basically as follows: the goods of productivity tend to be artificial and non-essential (beyond basic necessities, of course), while the goods of activity, of free, unalienated labor, are the sort that can give human life a general character of happiness and freedom.
I would not call anything artificial, I value these things immensely. Unless you are claiming I am some brainwashed pawn I would say that the term artificial is useless. If you are claiming I am a brainwashed pawn, my response would simply be a question on who the heck you are to tell me that I am brainwashed? I would say in response that people should be free to make the trade off they want on what job they want, some people may not care about money, others may enjoy such things. So what? Those who don't care much about money will strive to seek their joy in fields and jobs, etc, where they do something closer to what they want. The other part of that is that jobs do not come from nowhere, one must be given a job by someone or some other people, and thus there must be mutual consent. This means that nobody can be guaranteed perfect jobs, but they can always strive to find the best area. Now I suppose you would argue that we have fallen into a unfavorable equilibrium, I might see that as somewhat true, however, I think that a larger part of this is that nobody wants to pay the price for a system more optimal by your standards.


Whose freedom? The freedom of employers, whether they be the direct consumers of the good or the managers responsible to the direct consumers of the goods. Or simply the upstarts that want to find a place in society doing that job as they have no opportunity to move in to a position that is already taken. This system as designed cannot adapt to changes, if something changes and it hurts all of the other people within that system except that particular employee but that employee will bear the costs of the inflexible problems of other employees. In my opinion, it would seem to be a worse externality than that of the average corporation, and even worse it is in a system which is defined as not being able to compensate for this externality.


That's a bad choice, for the simple reason that the public good pursued by social control includes you, and the private good pursued by a "profit seeking manager" does not... but you misinterpreted me, so the entire question is irrelevant. The public good pursued by a profit seeking manager includes me too. How does the profit seeking manager get that profit? By selling stuff. Why do people buy this stuff? Because it benefits them. So by everyone trying to sell the stuff that others are trying to buy, the acts to promote the welfare of sellers also improves the lot of buyers. Capitalism already has shown its ability to pursue the public benefit though in my opinion. I probably did jump a little from worker control to worker democracy.

To give the democratic state control over one's labor is not all that much intrinsically less alienating than to give it to the capitalist. The only real difference is that there is a meaningful sense of contribution to collective well-being. That is why I refered to giving the worker control of her labor. I would say it is more alienating, as we choose our bosses, some bosses are great others suck. Democratic control involves less individual choice though. In democracy there might be a feeling of meaningful contribution

Individually. Well, technically speaking, a lot of stuff cannot be done individually and requires some form of shareholder system.

Only the "accountability" imposed by the controllers of wealth. Imposed? We have a market system. It isn't a matter of "imposing" it would exist even if we had greater equality, not only that but I tend to doubt that the ties between the thousands of wealthy people are such that they can organize effectively to oppress as you seem to argue by stating that power runs the system above all else. Does power exist? Yes. Do all organizations have this direct class-based power nature? Not really, there are too many small business men and problems with collusion.


"Ignore", no. But freedom requires non-subordination to economics. It requires that our lives are not controlled by our economic roles.
Freedom requires nothing other than choosing your end and having other people choose theirs.

I agree that people are creatures of habit, but typically these habits are ones we've chosen. I can't imagine being locked into a job for the rest of my life.

Somehow I have grown to distrust democracy. I think it is because I recognize my fellow men tend to be a bunch of idiots. Lemme guess...you exempt yourself from this statement, eh? ;)

China isn't communist. They recognized that their system failed and have become a capitalistic nation. Calling them communist today is not correct at all.Calling them communist ever is not correct at all.

Lemme guess...you exempt yourself from this statement, eh? ;) I said "tend" to be, not that they all are. This does not mean that everyone is stupid just that if you pick one person then on average I would probably not be very impressed by his/her knowledge on an issue. Now, I know it is fun to take potshots, but really, the democracy distrusting position is not an irrational view to take so long as it is not extreme. I recognize that somewhat democratic governments have some strengths.

I said "tend" to be, not that they all are. This does not mean that everyone is stupid just that if you pick one person then on average I would probably not be very impressed by his/her knowledge on an issue. Now, I know it is fun to take potshots, but really, the democracy distrusting position is not an irrational view to take so long as it is not extreme. I recognize that somewhat democratic governments have some strengths.Oh, my point wasn't to take a potshot at you.
I just hear that a lot from people who dislike democracy - that people aren't all that intelligent. I wonder if they exempt themselves from this statement, so I figured I'd ask you.
I figure that if everyone who says that people aren't intelligent exempts themselves from that statement, and if they're correct in exempting themselves, then people aren't all that stupid at all.
Kind of like the general rule that everyone thinks they're a good driver, and thinks everyone else sucks at driving. That sort of thing. :D

State anything-ism only exists because of people's refusal to take responsibility for the world around them.

Well, I have spoken to a few people from former East Germany, as well as a few people from the former Soviet Union.

On the whole, they say, it sucks.

Oh, my point wasn't to take a potshot at you.
I just hear that a lot from people who dislike democracy - that people aren't all that intelligent. I wonder if they exempt themselves from this statement, so I figured I'd ask you.
I figure that if everyone who says that people aren't intelligent exempts themselves from that statement, and if they're correct in exempting themselves, then people aren't all that stupid at all.
Kind of like the general rule that everyone thinks they're a good driver, and thinks everyone else sucks at driving. That sort of thing. :D
Well, if you argue that literally everyone says that and everyone who says that is correct, then yes people aren't all that stupid. However, I just tend to think that the average person doesn't put enough thought or research into their positions. There are definitely people who do research and have well thought-out positions with good logical foundations but I just don't think it to be the majority.

You are right though, human beings are arrogant on our abilities and natures but I would state that through most estimations on important voting knowledge, I would end up above the average.

yadda yadda yadda -- being punished for being successful -- yadda yadda yadda

This is the single dumbest turn of phrase to come out of the anti tax lobby. Taxation IS NOT PUNISHMENT!!!!!

If someone is successful (without being given their success on a silver platter wrapped in a bow) that generally means that they were able to work well within the current system. In turn, it is only fair that they give back proportionally to the system that was responsible for their success. What's the hell is the matter with that????

In turn, it is only fair that they give back proportionally to the system that was responsible for their success.
And that's the counterpart in terms of dumb statements. Proportionally giving back would be a flat tax. You're asking for more than proportional returns.

And secondly, it's ridiculous to say that "the system" (tm) is responsible for people's success. It may have played a part, but that's about as far as it goes.

Proportionally giving back would be a flat tax.

But, a "flat tax" actually ends up being regressive. Taking an equal percentage from all, with no consideration given to individual necessity, only further "punishes" the less successful, and only serves to keep them down.

I have been thinking lately, alot of noise has been made of the 'state control of life' under socialist states in history and even currently, but are we ignoring important aspects of human nature in this?
I don't think so. I think it is not only human nature to want to be better, to rise above and pass on what we have gained to a next generation as a legacy, but the nature of every living thing on the planet. That is evolution.

Do you think that naturally people like to have a direction and certainly of life that socialist countries bring? With cradle to the grave support, when your life is made up for you from your birth and your assured of employment and future.
The main problem that I have with this is that it does rob one of not only choice but the chance to rise above, to improve oneself and leave a legacy, to pass on what has been gained and evolve the species and society. Capitalism is an economic application of evolution while socialism is both a social and economic (depending on the specific hypothesis) application of creationism--err, intelligent design. No single person or entity can reliably create and guide a system like a market or society dependant on so many variables for very long any more than it could a new lifeform.

In modern what I like to call 'managerial' capitalist society, employment is often unstable and speculative, the responsibility is on the individual for results on not on following set regulations in the workplace.
And it is that instability that leads to either a failure and elimination or a creative solution and success. Genetic instability causes mutation and while most mutations are either not beneficial adaptation or simply are not passed on, those that are drive the evolutionary process and the advancement of a species. If it is our biological nature then why deny it in the arenas of society and economics?

I for one am a university student who does casual retail work also, and at times I think to myself that I would prefer to have a life-time job with set wages and regulations, that I have certainty for my life, even if I don't have choice I personally would wish for such a life. I myself have massive responsibility, I have thousands of debt in uni hecs fees which I must pay back eventually, I have high expectations put on me by family, friends for being at uni, and sometimes honestly I would wish that I could just have a set job and not so much pressure, just a set routine daily.
First, not everyone is so willing to relenquish their liberties for security and stability, some would and have even gone so far as to say that those who choose such a path desrve neither what they reject nor what they seek through that denial, especially if they wish to deny the freedom of choice to others. And if you do not favor forcing all to give up their choice for this secure job then why should those that choose to stay free and risk living their lives have to pay for those that do choose security over liberty?

Second, whose fault is it that you went into debt without having a plan for getting back out? The university or you? Who chose the extra education? Is it not reasonable to expect individuals to accept responsibility for their actions?

Third, it is the strain of life that forces us to better ourselves and to hopefully pass any improvements on to our offspring so that they may be more able to tackle the tasks of life and continue the process.

Now this has got me thinking,
Do us all a favor and stop. (I just couldn't resist)

alot of made in Soviet Union, East Germany etc that the people were oppressed by threat of death, have people actually put any thought into the fact that these people were actually used to this pattern of behavior and work and didn't like change, that the government would always look after them, all they had to do was their task.
Isn't that more than a bit like saying that if people haven't done anything wrong then they'll have nothing to fear when the police come-a-knocking and want to perform a warrantless search?

It reminds me of doing the public sector changes in Australia as a study topic in government at uni, since the late 80s 'managerial' reforms took place in which usually public servants had life employment, all they had to do was pass an exam and they get a job for life, these days their bosses are more like private sector managers, they are under stress to produce results on an individual level, and if they fail it's the individuals fault, where once the public service was about serving, it's now about surviving.
And we come right back to evolution. In the US there have been several local studies of public schools, specifically the instructors. Those that grabbed headlines involved an alarmingly high number of instructors failing to pass the same material they were supposed to be teaching. Not a single teacher was laid off or fired for their inability to perform their task. Just showing up to work every day isn't enough, you have to actually do your job and do it well or you're being a drain on the system and may be hurting others.

I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but I certainly do, call it state restriction or whatnot, but a certain aspect of human nature finds a community unity in such an environment, when wealth divides the community down the middle, a society when all you have to do is your task and the government will take care of the rest. Today's modern system espouses flexibility and choice in our lives, to succeed and fail based on us individually, so if we fail we are at fault, not a system when we are equal as a community. Do we as humans seek to release ourselves from the constant stress and burdens of responsibility heaped upon our shoulders from a capitalist system, do we naturally like to have certainty?
Some have always sought to eliminate the strain of competition, but that would a rejection of the evolutionary process that created not only humans but all life that has or ever will exist on Earth. Without competition or stress there is no need for advancement, no drive to succeed. If you level a playing field so that everyone can be equal it will only be a matter of time before someone decides he wants to be more, to have more, and to ensure a better life for his children than what a support society can provide with so many draining without contributing as well as a legacy for himself. It is not only human nature but the nature of all things. From life to celestial objects, the strong survive while the weak perish and fade into obscurity. It's not fair but it is the way things have always been and it is the most effective method for advancement.

Socialism, especially enforced socialism, is a denial of not only human nature but of evolution as a whole, of the natural selection and mutation that drive it. Capitalism is the economic application of evolution, of natural selection and mutation. Why reject the process that brought us into being, a process that has proven itself time and again over at least hundreds of millions of years?

But, a "flat tax" actually ends up being regressive. Taking an equal percentage from all, with no consideration given to individual necessity, only further "punishes" the less successful, and only serves to keep them down.
That's not the point. You said it was a proportionate thing to have rich people pay a higher percentage of their higher income. It clearly isn't.

What the alternatives are doesn't have an impact on that statement.

And besides, how about we just charge everyone a *gasp* low tax rate?

Suprisingly you talk about having a job for life and such, but in most socialist societies, unemployement is higher than in places like the US. I also agree with Siylva, what's so great about working some minimum wage job? And what is wrong with getting results out of someone?

If I'm paying you to do a job, I want my money's worth. If teacher "A" has a class average score of 95% and teacher "B" only has a class average of 65%, why am I going to reward him with "Life-time employment"? No I'm going to fire him and give his money to teacher "A". I also don't see what is so great about being punished for being successful.Taxing the rich more because they are rich is absurd. How about we tax the smart because they are smart while we're in the process of punishing those with initiative. The higher your IQ the more we tax your Income. Afterall, it's not fair that the rich have money and I don't and it isn't fair the smart are more intelligent than I. It couldn't possibly be because, perhaps I'm just not applying myself hard enough. No no it's always the 'systems' fault. Sorry Milton Friedman was right when he said a truely free-market society is best for mankind.

Ohh yeah and Communism worked out great for Soviet Russia and East Germany. Just like it's doing wonders for Cuba and North Korea.

I agree with you 100%; it just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to punish initiative, entrepreneurialism, hard work, and success with higher taxes, and reward laziness with welfare.

*snip*

Do we as humans seek to release ourselves from the constant stress and burdens of responsibility heaped upon our shoulders from a capitalist system, do we naturally like to have certainty?

I wrote an essay in response to this thoughtful post. It was way too long and rambling. I substitute:

We look to the tribe for survival. Once that's assured, we compete with each other.

As long as we have a tribe, some comrades or family on our side, competition is satisfying (win or lose) but when it's "every man for himself" ... well, not even dogs do that. That's only fun if you don't even have to consider what it might be like to lose.

State anything-ism only exists because of people's refusal to take responsibility for the world around them.
Indeed.

I agree with you 100%; it just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to punish initiative, entrepreneurialism, hard work, and success with higher taxes, and reward laziness with welfare.

Surely those who try but cannot make ends meet due to aforementioned initiative deserve some help.

Well, if you argue that literally everyone says that and everyone who says that is correct, then yes people aren't all that stupid. However, I just tend to think that the average person doesn't put enough thought or research into their positions. There are definitely people who do research and have well thought-out positions with good logical foundations but I just don't think it to be the majority.Perhaps not, but this doesn't mean that they will inherently make the wrong decision. Even if they picked randomly, there's still a chance of being correct.

You are right though, human beings are arrogant on our abilities and natures but I would state that through most estimations on important voting knowledge, I would end up above the average.But is the average too stupid to make decisions for itself?

Perhaps not, but this doesn't mean that they will inherently make the wrong decision. Even if they picked randomly, there's still a chance of being correct. That is assuming that bad choices and biases are random. If they are not random then we don't have anything cancel out and thus end up with bad results.

But is the average too stupid to make decisions for itself?
It depends on what you mean. The average CAN run a democracy it is just that such a system will be filled with inconsistency and problems. The average can also run their own lives but that will have its own problems due to certain biases. Do I want people to make decisions for the average people though? No. It would be too much centralized power, the information that the intervener would deal with would be too difficult to properly make decisions in many cases, intervention would cost too much in resources, and people would likely prefer to not have this type of intervention. Really though, I consider the argument that people are stupid, irrational idiots rather common by many political groups.

I have been thinking lately, alot of noise has been made of the 'state control of life' under socialist states in history and even currently, but are we ignoring important aspects of human nature in this? Do you think that naturally people like to have a direction and certainly of life that socialist countries bring? With cradle to the grave support, when your life is made up for you from your birth and your assured of employment and future. In modern what I like to call 'managerial' capitalist society, employment is often unstable and speculative, the responsibility is on the individual for results on not on following set regulations in the workplace.

Why would anybody want their lives to be controlled from the cradle to the grave? Gott in himmel, I can't imagine how utterly boring that would be. I mean, life is fun because of the chances to improve your lot in life, that of your children's, and to leave your mark on the world.

Also, someone pointed out earlier, but it's worth repeating: you're ignoring incentive. For example, in a socialist state, it's my job to make 100 candles in a day, but my job is completely protected by the state to the point where it's impossible to fire me. Now, why, then, would I want to bust my butt making 100 candles when I can make 1 all day and still keep my job with the same pay? Hell, why would I even bother making candles? I'll just sleep all day and the management be damned because they can't do anything about it.

I for one am a university student who does casual retail work also, and at times I think to myself that I would prefer to have a life-time job with set wages and regulations, that I have certainty for my life, even if I don't have choice I personally would wish for such a life. I myself have massive responsibility, I have thousands of debt in uni hecs fees which I must pay back eventually, I have high expectations put on me by family, friends for being at uni, and sometimes honestly I would wish that I could just have a set job and not so much pressure, just a set routine daily. Now this has got me thinking, alot of made in Soviet Union, East Germany etc that the people were oppressed by threat of death, have people actually put any thought into the fact that these people were actually used to this pattern of behavior and work and didn't like change, that the government would always look after them, all they had to do was their task. It reminds me of doing the public sector changes in Australia as a study topic in government at uni, since the late 80s 'managerial' reforms took place in which usually public servants had life employment, all they had to do was pass an exam and they get a job for life, these days their bosses are more like private sector managers, they are under stress to produce results on an individual level, and if they fail it's the individuals fault, where once the public service was about serving, it's now about surviving.

See, this is why one goes to a university: to have a good, stable job. Granted, there are cases where even university students can't find a job in a capitalistic society, but they're so few and far between that one is almost assured (at the very least) a decent career with the distinct possiblity of finding another one. High school dropouts and graduates don't have that luxury, but hey, it was their choice to not seek higher education.

I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but I certainly do, call it state restriction or whatnot, but a certain aspect of human nature finds a community unity in such an environment, when wealth divides the community down the middle, a society when all you have to do is your task and the government will take care of the rest. Today's modern system espouses flexibility and choice in our lives, to succeed and fail based on us individually, so if we fail we are at fault, not a system when we are equal as a community. Do we as humans seek to release ourselves from the constant stress and burdens of responsibility heaped upon our shoulders from a capitalist system, do we naturally like to have certainty?

I don't. Why would you, a productive member of society, want to be considered a failure if your neighbor is a lazy bum who can't hold a job for more than a few days? How fair is that?

But, you see, it's those "burdens of responsibility" that make us better people and more productive members of society. And, if we perform admirably under such circumstances, then we are virtually guaranteed a good job by default. Never ever ever underestimate the power of an open market.

That is assuming that bad choices and biases are random. If they are not random then we don't have anything cancel out and thus end up with bad results.This assumes that it's possible to cancel out bad decisions as a whole.

It depends on what you mean. The average CAN run a democracy it is just that such a system will be filled with inconsistency and problems. The average can also run their own lives but that will have its own problems due to certain biases. Do I want people to make decisions for the average people though? No. It would be too much centralized power, the information that the intervener would deal with would be too difficult to properly make decisions in many cases, intervention would cost too much in resources, and people would likely prefer to not have this type of intervention. Really though, I consider the argument that people are stupid, irrational idiots rather common by many political groups.So how do we objectively determine who is above average?

This assumes that it's possible to cancel out bad decisions as a whole. Well, if we have random left wing bias and random right wing bias then ultimately the mean will be the same and politicians often try to pander to that mean.

So how do we objectively determine who is above average?
Objectively? It is impossible to be absolutely certain on these things, we can use some form of test to determine the most knowledgeable people on the issues at hand perhaps but that leads to issues of biased tests and possibilities for political discrimination and no test could ever hit every single issue for knowledge and necessarily diagnose it correctly. Not only that but it carries some cost with it. Because all methods we would rely on would be a variant of test and tests have the problems previously mentioned it might not be wise to use them.

Well, if we have random left wing bias and random right wing bias then ultimately the mean will be the same and politicians often try to pander to that mean.But this would mean that the mean is correct.
Simply because someone has an opinion because they're biased doesn't mean that their opinion is incorrect, simply misinformed.

Objectively? It is impossible to be absolutely certain on these things, we can use some form of test to determine the most knowledgeable people on the issues at hand perhaps but that leads to issues of biased tests and possibilities for political discrimination and no test could ever hit every single issue for knowledge and necessarily diagnose it correctly. Not only that but it carries some cost with it. Because all methods we would rely on would be a variant of test and tests have the problems previously mentioned it might not be wise to use them.Then how do we determine who should run the state? Since you oppose direct democracy, you presumably want above average people running things. How would we figure out who these people are?

But this would mean that the mean is correct.
Simply because someone has an opinion because they're biased doesn't mean that their opinion is incorrect, simply misinformed.
The mean of informed individuals on an issue will likely be closer to correct than the mean of uninformed individuals. Is there a brilliant proof of who is correct in making a decision? Not that I am aware of. Therefore the informed mean must be the best guess as to the proper course that we can deal with. The problem there is that an unsupported biased opinion is more than likely going to be wrong. Given that political matters deal with the real world, there does tend to be a right and a wrong answer on these issues and an opinion that is correct and one that is not supported by evidence. Note, I am not arguing that Marxists shouldn't vote, I am arguing that idiots with a limited idea on matters shouldn't vote.

Then how do we determine who should run the state? Since you oppose direct democracy, you presumably want above average people running things. How would we figure out who these people are?
I would want experts but centralization of power leads to greater possibilities of corruption. Experts though can usually be determined by the presence of higher education on a subject, and through their employment as experts at other places. Really though, there is some difficulty in determining the people who are best to run a state, and given that a state has power to overrule the individual, this trust should not be misplaced.

Seriously, what is so great about being assured to work in some low-paying job.

The part about having a job, I'd guess. Getting and keeping a job isn't all that easy everywhere in the world you know, not even if you were willing to work at anything for lower than the minimum wages per month. :mad:

The mean of informed individuals on an issue will likely be closer to correct than the mean of uninformed individuals. Is there a brilliant proof of who is correct in making a decision? Not that I am aware of. Therefore the informed mean must be the best guess as to the proper course that we can deal with. The problem there is that an unsupported biased opinion is more than likely going to be wrong. Given that political matters deal with the real world, there does tend to be a right and a wrong answer on these issues and an opinion that is correct and one that is not supported by evidence. Note, I am not arguing that Marxists shouldn't vote, I am arguing that idiots with a limited idea on matters shouldn't vote.Perhaps this is the case.
With that said, this doesn't mean that elected officials will inform themselves on what they're voting for. I remember a scene from Fahrenheit 911 where members of Congress admitted they didn't read most of the bills they voted on.

I would want experts but centralization of power leads to greater possibilities of corruption. Experts though can usually be determined by the presence of higher education on a subject, and through their employment as experts at other places. Really though, there is some difficulty in determining the people who are best to run a state, and given that a state has power to overrule the individual, this trust should not be misplaced.So do you want centralized power or not?