Why come?
 

Why the hell come there isn't an economic system election where the citizens of the U.S. may get to vote to select what type of economic system they truely want?


Americans are so conformed to go a certain way--Don't you see this?! One might say that America has been confined to hold less liberty. Only together we the people can expand the liberty in this country.

There most certainly needs to be made a new bill or whatever that gives us Americans the voting power to be able to change the economic system. So inform your congressman or make some kind of petition or do whatever it is to bring about a day when Americans can vote to be able to change the economic system!

It shouldnt have to be a poor class of people among in America at all! If you the people are so intelligent then use your brains and make it so it doesn't have to be a poor class of people in United States of America. At least create more opportunity for people to be able to change.

My brain storming: :hmm:

Since I thought of an economic system election, such an election should be held on March 9th (my b-day :cool: ) and be held like maybe 9 years apart.

For such a forthcoming economic system election the unfolding plans of newer economic systems may be introduced for the people of America to decide on.

This kind of economic system election will revolutionize the intelligence of the people of America. The civil revolution will be televized!

On the ballot you should see and be able to choose:

socialism
communism
capitalism
etc.
etc.

Plus, there should be commericals for them just like those campaign ads to inform the people. And there should be debates held even by some kind of persons or teams acting as the representative for the particular economic systems.

Because if we did anything like that, we'd be moving towards democracy ... and we all know how impossible a democracy is.

While we're at it, I propose a Road Speed Election - on the ballot, we'd have choices like:

Increase +10mph
Increase +5mph
No Change
Decrease -5mph
Decrease -10mph

Same old socialist rhetoric. I've heard this before, and I'm not swayed.

Agreed. :thumbsup:

???

It's socialist rhetoric to suggest a true democratic process?

Huh?

That right there is what I'm talking about. It's completely asinine to think that we can wipe out poverty. There will ALWAYS be a bottom rung of society, no matter what. Even when you improve the lot of the less fortunate, they will still be less fortunate, and be considered to live in poverty.

Also, note which economic system is right at the top of the list.

So relativity means never needing to help the poor? Sounds reasonable to me.

Oh. Then I guess you missed that big bold question right at the top:

Why the hell come there isn't an economic system election where the citizens of the U.S. may get to vote to select what type of economic system they truely want?

Which essentially means: why isn't America a democracy? And the answer may be complex and possibly even interesting, but I can assure you it has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism.

this sounds pretty silly to me. Changing your econimic system isn't something you can do over night. And if we did start doing this how often do we hold economic system elections? 4 years? 20 years? Have fun trying to change your system every couple years.

Um...no? This makes no sense whatsoever. It is impossible on so, so many levels.

America isn't a democracy anyway. It's a republic.

This is a very good guess, and a lot of ( if not most) people would agree with you, but not quite. A republic is a form of government where the head of state is not a monarch. This is a broad term that includes representative democracy. So we live in a Republic that is democratic.

In a democracy decisions are made by representatives who act by the citizens consent, as enforced by elections and the rule of law.
Our war on Iraq (originally for weapons, now supposedly for freeing people who never asked for our help) has left us in control of the second largest oil source of the world, and with a terrific launching point for an attack on the first largest source. We are already beginning to hear a growing number of weapons are being developed in Saudi Arabia.

The fact that we have troops and bases organized to preside over the Earth's natural resources (for control, of course) makes us more of the Pax Americana (in the derogatory sense of the word); an Empire (or an imperium). the Emperor, while not one person, is one body. Our vicroys are the heads of state in many of our allies countries. Very soon the viceroy in Iraq will be in power, for example. An empire, while depending on the support of it's citizens eventually, willusually act to it's (the governments) own ends while trying to appear to be acting in the citizens best interest. Whether the goals of the government and those of the people are one and the same or not is not a matter of importance in pertaining to the trype of government.

Of course this is all IMO.

Yeah, I don't think it's realistic to vote for an economic system, either. Further, as a republic, we don't vote on every issue, we elect people to decide the issues for us.

well said

Not to mention, changing and entire economic system from the ground up entails a lot of decisions and changes. We're not going to get to vote on every one of those (nor do I think we should). So this would be one of those situations where people vote for something, but they all have a different idea of what that something will mean. When they get it, they'll all feel betrayed...

First, Socialism and Communism are not economic systems. They are forms of government that have a different economic system built into them. The economics of Socialism and Communism are just a part of the entire package.

Second, you have the choice to vote for these systems right now. If that is what you would like to see in America (judging by your writing I am guessing that you are not in America or you are new here), then vote for the candidate that matches your desires (they are out there......really out there, j.k.). We are a majority rule country and neither (true) Socialism nor Communism is desired by the majority.

For example, imagine if John Kerry started campaigning that he will change our system completely to a socialist system, what would happen to his numbers? Probably go way down. Why? Because most Americans want/appreciate the system we have in place.

But to say that you have no choice in this matter or that there isn't a choice is incorrect. It is just that what you desire is not a popular choice.

Anyway, utopian dreams aside, there will always be poor, there will always be the "lower class". Some things are just inherent to human beings. Is it good? No. Will it ever change? No. There isn't any one system that someone could implement that would be succesful. Every economic/governmental system has its pros and cons. Regardless of the choice, there will be flaws.

"For example, imagine if John Kerry started campaigning that he will change our system completely to a socialist system, what would happen to his numbers? Probably go way down. Why? Because most Americans want/appreciate the system we have in place."

It would be more accurate, in my opinion, to say that most Americans are afraid of sweeping change.

"Anyway, utopian dreams aside, there will always be poor, there will always be the "lower class". Some things are just inherent to human beings. Is it good? No. Will it ever change? No."

While I am a pessimist as well, I believe that thinking such as this is what keeps us from eliminating poverty, hunger, inequity, hatred and pain.

I would disagree.

To say "afraid of sweeping change" you are alluding that the new "system" is desireable but the process to change to the new system isn't.

I would argue that the proposed systems are not desireable and that most don't care about the difficulties surrounding the change.

Certain things are a given and I view it a waste of time to pursue them. Improving the lives of others is good, but to think that poverty can be eliminated is a pipe dream. I would say, work on that which is possible, leave the rest to the philosphers.

You certainly did disagree. One of those things that is a given and that is a waste of time to pursue is either of us trying to change the other's mind. Have a nice day.

That is false. Socialism is as much an economic system as capitalism. Communism is one type of socialist government, another type would be a socialist democracy, or a socialist democratic republic (which is what the U.S. happens to be).

But in fact it doesn't allude to any desireable or undesireable beliefs of any system. To state the people are afraid of change does not cast any judgement on what that change may or may not be.

You might argue that, but it does not address the issue brought up by Kadath that whether the proposed change in the system is going to be good or bad, society is more inclined to avoid the change simply because the result is not assured.

Maybe I can be more clear:

The conversion from our current system to a different system would require almost a complete change in our government, the way it works, etc. etc. In other words, these changes are not just economic, but governmental as well.

You couldn't vote for a candidate who supports the free-market and then vote for a communist system, it wouldn't work. The two need to be able to work together.

I was trying to point out that the changes requested by the original poster would not work strictly in an economic sense because the new system would require a different form of government, different people in the government, etc.

Socialism, which is heavily derived from an economic theory, has become more then just a different school of thought in the economics world.

Is that more clear?


kadath - wow. Under that train of thought, this board is a waste of time. I do not aspire to change anyone's opinion, I only desire an open discussion.