ZAROVE wrote:Thats why I think that both Socialism and Capitalism are remarkably horrible things to run a societ by. Capitalism works well in the Marketplace, and allows rhe consumer and the entrepeneur vast optiosn to grow their wealth or material goods and meet their needs, and is by far the single best system on the planet for such matters. However, if you base a society aroudn a Capitalist principle, it will extend past the Marketplace and into every other area, where it doens't really belong. Look at the recent example of Fulton Tennessee and its subscription Fire Department, wich allowed a mans home to burn. That was simply wrong. I think the Government ( I this case city or county) should operate nonprofit emergency services, that will be paid for put pof the Taxes of the whole community, and used to ensure everyones mutual safety. Police, Fire De[partment, and emergeny medical including ambulance s4rvices should all be run on a social level.
So should the Post Office.
Why do these things not belong in a marketplace? Do services not belong in a marketplace? What about dry-cleaning? If I believed that all humans have an intrinsic right to dry-cleaning, I'd argue vociferously that dry-cleaning must be a socialized service available to everyone regardless of income. Do all humans have a right to a post office, and is that right threatened by running post offices as private enterprises?
As a result I think Capitalism is a failure in socially needed emrgency protections and society requires a functioning Governemntal support mechanism.
I think you're quite right in the sense that capitalism fails to guarantee basic rights to individuals. The right to life, only if you can pay a medical provider. The right to a dignified old age and burial, only if you can pay. The right to be with your children, only if you can afford a long period of unpaid leave and your employer decides to let you go.
But Socialism fails because it takes over aras its not suppose to, too. When Socialism mixes withthe Marketplace it stifles growth and destorys Freedom.
But this is a gray area, which makes it such an important topic to discuss. Which markets can manage themselves, and why? Are there markets that work part of the time and need to be checked only partially? What should be the domain of the marketplace? What should be done in case of market failure or overly aggressive business practices, if anything? This is all highly debatable, while agreeing with your main point.
So I advocate Capitalism for the Marketplace, and Communal support as opposed to Capitalism for certain other things. Though I'd not be classed as a Socialist given that I don't beleice in Egal;itarianism and Democray, seeign them as innefficient failures that don't even protect the rights everyone so identifies with it.
And, this is why I advocate the older model, which was a Government by subsideary. We'd have an agreed upon Authority, a King, whose principel duties wodl include settlign disputes between rival local Lords, and nesurign the peopel who are his subjects are protected, but who coudl not Violarte their rights. Rights to be written on a Charter that is not Amendable.
When has this model ever been in practice? It sounds like you think it has, and I'm curious to read more about the specifics
. That said, I think that Plato's idea of Philosopher Kings sounds close to your vision, and it's an idea that I would totally endorse if any nation were radical enough to try it.
A State Religion would also be erected, and though no one woudl be forced ot attend it, it woudl be seen as the general spiritual voice and moral concinece of the Nation. Other Faiths may also have official Govenrment representation, thugh thye'd be of lesser rank than the State Church.
I like this notion. But don't call it religion, call it "spiritual services". It'd be a service, tied to a peaceful and reverent place, where people could come with their problems for help and experience a sense of community. Public servants, trained in psychology, social care, and perhaps a personal faith, would lead the congregation. Does that sound good to you?
The Focus woudl be on our Duties as much as on our rights.
The big problem with Socialism is that it offers us a faceless beureucracy that regulares evrrythign ostentatisuly int he name of "the People", a mass that never really agrees on anything.
Faceless? Our officials have faces, names, and families. One problem with any government is that a country that is too large is led by faceless types. Even a king is faceless if he's too big.
This way our Focus is on our King, and our local Lord.
Local politics are always the most personal. More distributed decision-making is often better, save if national (or international) collaboration is necessary
We'd have duties that would be centred around service to each other centred around our relationship to the owners of the estates or National Goverment. This provides an oeganic, agreed to point of reerence for everyone else to follow.
Americans can't even agree on the question of whether health care should be available to poor people. I think it's a human right, but not everyone does. It's a pipe-dream to believe that everyone will agree on anything, no matter how simple, basic, or natural...