Frankly I would favor to live in a country with direct democracy, not necessarily on every issue but there should be a system of accountability in government that directly involves the people being the dominant force, not just the people they elect.
I'm conflicted in my feelings about government, too. For one I think the government should be as tiny as possible but I think it should be able to afford to do the following:
Public Education, Police, Fire Department, Forest protection, etc... (standardly socialized things)
Social Security
Healthcare
A well trained and well equipped fighting force (I don't think it has to be all that huge, with dozens of air craft carriers floating around sucking money away)
College subsidies
Green transition subsidies
I'm pretty much with the idea that no central policy is the best policy, and that people manage their own lives a lot better than their supervisors. Managers and leaders should work more as coordinators or harmonizers. The USSR for instance tried to set up a universal business policy all industries had to follow and it collapsed because of individual needs. The only time I think its a good idea for a government to have a universal policy is during times of crisis such as terrorism from the perspective of the backwash or the Great Depression in the '30s. Hoover tried to have this policy in mind, aligned with Coolidge and Harding before him, that a completely hands off business government worked and so he refused to help the people through this crisis. Essentially what saved the people was a federal employment of much of the population for the government, a complete change in political and economic philosophy from the last decade. That's because every system has problems, if there was some economic policy in place then we would have had the economic boom of the twenties and once people maximized their purchasing power the government could take a step back and say, "Well it worked alright but once this crisis is over maybe we should try getting people on just one installment payment plan at a time."
And during this critical period we had a very socialist government, and it saved everybody. The government was giving people houses and buying excess crops and storing them. I voted for a communist state but I support a free-market, it's just I've studied Marx and nothing about his philosophy disagrees with a free market state. In fact, it's a completely free market, instead of the government or corporations making jobs, people make their own jobs. It's a system where a manager is not a rich aristocrat, simply a human being that found himself a qualified coordinator and his colleagues agreed. It's not like people all get paid exactly the same, people get paid based on the agreed worth of the work they put in. I think societies would naturally agree a surgeon should be paid more than a street sweeper because it requires training
There's a million reasons why this state wouldn't work, but that's why I wouldn't want it take place as a revolution where a dictator steps in in order to help the transition take place. I'd want it to take place in a democracy, slowly overtime as civilization advances to the point where its ready. Sure, small revolutions and periods of energetic reform are necessary due to the fact that inevitable little leech like men find lifestyles where their happiness becomes bent on the unhappiness of others and they need to get thrown out or removed. Aside from that though, I don't think a violent revolution could ever lead to a utopian government.
|
|
Bookmarks