Fight with us!

[Megacrafter127]

Room for two?[DOUBLEPOST=1410627105,1410625858][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, if the government controls your internet, they can control what you see and don't see.

That right there is one hell of a slippery slope. Next thing you know, the Republicans are all evil baby killers and the Democrats are wonderful perfect beings, or vice versa. After that, the government is doing everything perfectly and third party groups are terrorists killing thousands a day while petition websites are deemed unconstitutional due to their evil racist ideals or something.

It just won't work.

2 things:

1. If there were 3rd parties with an actual chance to get into congress, that couldn't happen, unless it's similar to the "republicrats"(I merged "republicans" and "democrats"). Simply because no party has enough votes on it's own to make the decision.
2. If that actually happens, the US government will have ruined their relationships with other democratic countries.

 

[FlyingDebris]

1, assuming any person in charge of the FCC has total control over what we see/don't see on the internet, they will do what is going to please their sponsors/party, effectively negating what you just said.

2, foreign policy apparently doesn't mean much to our current administration as a whole anymore, apparently. We're already fraying ties with other democratic countries in support of people like Assad and La Raza.

 

[Megacrafter127]

1, assuming any person in charge of the FCC has total control over what we see/don't see on the internet, they will do what is going to please their sponsors/party, effectively negating what you just said.

It seems you didn't get what I implied. Well, I can't blame you, so I'll state it now:

Having 3rd parties in congress would change things up. If the president acts too much in benefit of his own (party), the other parties are likely to unite against him, and present a motion of no confidence, which is likely to pass due to their combined vast majority.
(If the US legislation lacks motions of no confidence, I am hereby loosing all hope for recovery of the US)

2, foreign policy apparently doesn't mean much to our current administration as a whole anymore, apparently. We're already fraying ties with other democratic countries in support of people like Assad and La Raza.

I doubt they'll go as far as to risk waging war on half the "develpoded" countries out there.

 

[FlyingDebris]

A war, no. But pissing them off, easily a yes. We're already doing it to Germany and Israel.

As to a no confidence vote, the offending party will simply keep it from happening with a government shutdown or something. It's worked for the Obama administration, and is unfourtunately becoming a common tactic it seems. Next thing you know they'll implement a permanent "crisis" requiring them to stay in office.

 

[Megacrafter127]

Now you're using another "fault", the easy filibuster.

 

[Deleted member 301635]

Sometimes I just wish that there was a law which was effectively the early internet's motto of 'information wants to be free'.
I.E.: No-one can charge money for information, and the money needed to distribute it comes from not-for-profit sources.
Unfortunately, that's unlikely, thanks to the near-omnipresence of capitalism(especially since the only thing that kept it in check, communism, is now limited to a handful of countries, none of which do it properly(Personally, I hope that a democratic communist government comes along some day, but it's unlikely)).

 

[NeonSturm]

Sometimes I just wish that there was a law which was effectively the early internet's motto of 'information wants to be free'.
I.E.: No-one can charge money for information, and the money needed to distribute it comes from not-for-profit sources.
Unfortunately, that's unlikely, thanks to the near-omnipresence of capitalism(especially since the only thing that kept it in check, communism, is now limited to a handful of countries, none of which do it properly(Personally, I hope that a democratic communist government comes along some day, but it's unlikely)).

There is a place for communism and democracy.

In Germany I've seen a bridge in the middle of nowhere.
Some German airport (don't want to call out names :p) was a disaster in wasted money.

Only governments where people's reputation are directly bound to how well they manage their power are able to do it right.

The problem with capitalism is that you gain more money if you do something right, but also gain more money when all others gain less.

If a manager is only allowed to gain double of what the average of worker gains, wouldn't it be much better?
Or do you think it would encourage corruption too much?

 

[Leanson]

It seems you didn't get what I implied. Well, I can't blame you, so I'll state it now:

Having 3rd parties in congress would change things up. If the president acts too much in benefit of his own (party), the other parties are likely to unite against him, and present a motion of no confidence, which is likely to pass due to their combined vast majority.
(If the US legislation lacks motions of no confidence, I am hereby loosing all hope for recovery of the US)


I doubt they'll go as far as to risk waging war on half the "develpoded" countries out there.

I agree that the congress would do better if everything wasn't so half and half. It would be harder for one party to control congress and would enable more talking, compromises, and good ideas. Not a gang mentality as it is now.[DOUBLEPOST=1410645615,1410645133][/DOUBLEPOST]

There is a place for communism and democracy.

In Germany I've seen a bridge in the middle of nowhere.
Some German airport (don't want to call out names :p) was a disaster in wasted money.

Only governments where people's reputation are directly bound to how well they manage their power are able to do it right.

The problem with capitalism is that you gain more money if you do something right, but also gain more money when all others gain less.

If a manager is only allowed to gain double of what the average of worker gains, wouldn't it be much better?
Or do you think it would encourage corruption too much?

People don't like capitalism because it is not fair, you must work, and things are not equal. Capitalism isn't for the lazy, who don't want to work but want to share with those who work hard. And for corporatism is when the wealthy limit completion, implement restrictions, and team up with the government to cement their power. Making monopolies and such... We need competition which is what is lacking atm, for instance, other ISP businesses in one area.

 

[Megacrafter127]

I agree that the congress would do better if everything wasn't so half and half. It would be harder for one party to control congress and would enable more talking, compromises, and good ideas. Not a gang mentality as it is now.

Finally someone who got it straight the first time!

Sometimes I just wish that there was a law which was effectively the early internet's motto of 'information wants to be free'.
I.E.: No-one can charge money for information, and the money needed to distribute it comes from not-for-profit sources.
Unfortunately, that's unlikely, thanks to the near-omnipresence of capitalism(especially since the only thing that kept it in check, communism, is now limited to a handful of countries, none of which do it properly(Personally, I hope that a democratic communist government comes along some day, but it's unlikely)).

You might know I'm not the "capitalism, YAY"™ guy, but I still don't want to live in a communistic or anticapitalistic country, even if it is a legit democracy.
Communism is screwed up too easily IMO, while moderate capitalism is a self-stabilising system.
Moderation is key!

 

[scoutmobile]

Great discussion! Compelling, well thought out view points. I hope everyone everyone takes the time to vote. I felt like I was back in middle of a collaborative discussion at a University.

 

[Leanson]

Finally someone who got it straight the first time!

You might know I'm not the "capitalism, YAY"™ guy, but I still don't want to live in a communistic or anticapitalistic country, even if it is a legit democracy.
Communism is screwed up too easily IMO, while moderate capitalism is a self-stabilising system.
Moderation is key!

agreed fully... moderation!! I do think we need some programs to help people, and have it not dog eat do, as everyone will have bad times and such, but those programs people should not depend on and take it as their only wait to maintain their life and living. People use those program to not work and live better than those who work their ass off. Corruption will rear its head when the timing and opportunity is right. A good strategy is divide and conquer, mainly using class warfare to do this.

 

[Malacodor]

I seriously doubt that companies from a single country...

Today's megacorporations are not "from a single country", they produce in countrys where labour is cheap, they have their headquarter where taxes are low and sell where people can afford their products and services.

I know it sounds tin-foil crazy these days

These days everybody who doesn't blindly believe everything the government (which consinsts mostly of proven liars in most countrys) says is branded as conspiracy theorist - usually by the "free" mass media (which is owned by 2 energy and 4 armament companies in the US, for example).