What would be the worst result in each form of Government in it's unfettered extreme?
OK, Republican Conservatism in it's most extreme form would be extremely capitalist with little regulations. There would be much less social programs for the poor and "needy" and unemployed (however, there are statistics that show people give to charity allot more when not already taxed to pay for the same purpose) Now here is the problem. This could be an incredibly rich country that is able to keep a large majority of it's citizens employed.(Which it was, before certain taxation policies and gangster unions pushed many corporations and companies overseas and other more tax friendly states. Call it "greed", but this is business when they are pushed against a wall) However it is NOT rich, then we have the problem of unemployment. However, this would be the case in any form of government, except instead of taking taxes that could build more companies capable of employing people, we would be taxing companies and giving it away to the unemployed,A very short term solution. Also, let's not pretend Republicans do not engage in any social services what-so-ever.
(Obviously, I am Republican leaning toward Libertarian and constitutionalism)
Leftist Democrat- Government and corporation jobs available for anybody who is ambitious enough and put forth the effort early in life to achieve this goal. However, if he/she doesn't take this opportunity, then the the government has a plethora of social programs from everything from unemployment right down to SSI and everything in between. MANY of which are abused. Not all, but enough for MUCH stricter criteria to be set. Example- I should NOT be able to get SSI or welfare because of a prior heroin addiction. That sounds like a reward. But I know many who get this for that reason. The term "Oh, you can get a check for dat'" is getting to be ridiculous. Getting money from the government USED to be something to be ashamed about. That seems to be gone. And so is the motivation to WORK for an honest living. Also, Unions- They had their part in their time. Now they have abused their position and pushing jobs overseas. Also, High Taxes- Also pushing jobs overseas as well as to other parts of USA where taxes are cheaper. Look at New York. What sound businessman would open up a business in a state that they will make 10?ESS just due to taxes?! Why does government not see these problems. Because they are too obsesses with keeping their base and pandering with their social programs at the expense of the countries downfall. Also- LAws on top of laws on top of laws- Liberals are legislation crazy. There seems to be NO end to when or IF they will ever stop their "well intentioned" legislation. But you know where the road paved with good intentions lead..other than the poor house and a inevitably a land where government rules all if it continues this way. And I see NO signs of it slowing down, let alone stopping. (I know libs don't like to hear it, but communism was and is a failure, and as much as Leftists pump up socialized Europe, it is for all intents and purposes stagnant with no signs of an upturn w/o drastic governmental reform. FACT. Oh, and w/o BS meaningless "standard of living" rhetoric)
Libertarianism- Now, Libertarianism is a little harder to explain since it has several sect. Right-leaning, left leaning, and though many will disagree anarchism. But one thing they all have in common is a small role for government except for essential roles such as military defense, police, etc. In my opinion, the founding fathers created an excellent country that left little room for improvement. (with exception of slavery, woman's suffrage, and REAL examples of civil rights violations, not victims agenda "civil rights which is all the fashion now a days)
I am not insisting there is NO room for new laws or government, BUT there need to be far less government. ALso, there needs to be a stop put to every single event that a useless law could be written for. Because, let's face it. At least 60/70?f ALL new laws are designed as some type of new revenue source to pay for some new social policy that was outdated and useless before it ever passed. These social policies help no one except in the short term...and that is ONLY for people who ACTUALLY intend on returning to work. Invalids and people who CAN"T work are a different story.
Obviously this is extremely inadequate. So I am sure you will add your own arguments.
But let me ask you this question.
If, left completely unfettered, to it's own values, morality, and ideology, which form of Government do you think will be most prosperous in say 200 years. Maybe that is too optimistic. Which ones, if any, actually have a chance of SURVIVING into the future?
Asked By: Zarathustra....alas - 6/26/2010
From what I've witnessed over the past 40 years, it becomes apparent that, although we try to describe, categorize, and pigeon hole the different political parties, whatever you want to call it, I have found there are some basic things that can happen in any party. For example, Democrats and the Democratic Party can appear to be inclined to severe corruption and chaos (bleeding heart liberals letting the masses of people do whatever they want to, eventually leading to extremely negative results). Then you have the Republicans that see prevention and conservative views as the boon to enlightenment and the future, but, unfortunately and at some point, there appears gridlock and the inability to get anything done due to over rigid perspectives and points of view...
These two parties traditionally represent what is called "The Majority", and in a Democratic system of government, at least in the U.S. anyways, majority rules. Today, these two parties represent a fairly solid two thirds of all voters. There is a third group, that you could characterize as Libertarian, "independents", or, as Ross Perot tried to form, the Reform Party. This group wants power, but doesn't have enough unity or power and thus, does not also have a majority.
Now there are situations where the roles become reversed. In the 1980s, beginning in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan, there began the process of deregulation and reduction of the size of government. Say what? You would think that the Democrats would champion deregulation and more power to the people with a reduction in the size of government, but no, here this was coming from the Republican Party! Very strange indeed.
Then you have Democrats who you think would be completely behind the people as they traditionally are. But then you have terms like "limousine liberals" where you have very wealthy Democrats, that, when you take a good hard look at it, have no intention of helping people in general at all - they really just want to keep expanding their bank accounts, and it seems they act more like what you would consider to be conservative Republicans.
So, it is possible for things to become a little confusing, to say the least.
In the end, you have two different parties that an outsider may think have certain characteristics, but in reality are very much the same.
With Democracy, which includes all parties, the competition that is peacefully allowed between the parties that exist also can allow for the best possible outcomes for people and society in general. So personally, I think that this form of government has the best chance of surviving into the future.
When you give only a few power and authority, like in an oligarchy, totalitarianism, etc..., you can and will run into some very dire and extreme problems that lead to the breakdown of society.
Likewise, when you attempt to give power to only people in general, like in communism, eventually that breaks down as well, and the process of this form of government breaking also leads to overwhelming consequences.
With Democracy, you have checks and balances that keep any one party from having too much power, and you can get different parties to work together to achieve otherwise impossible to reach goals that help everyone.
So, although I've had problems with the downsides of each party and their sometimes apparent lack of any ability to work together, I have seen how the positive, or "upsides" to each party can be much greater than their shortcomings. In other words, with Republicans, you want to be able to retain and use reasonable conservative points of view in order to avoid foreseeable problems and to avoid repeating past mistakes. With Democrats, although it appears that liberalism can sometimes allow for things that you know are going to lead to problems, this also takes into account that many people aren't going to believe something blindly that someone else tells them unless they witness or experience it first hand, This allows people to see or experience for themselves anything they are interested in, and it helps to create trust and faith that people are smart enough to realize what works and what doesn't work - in this way the Democratic Party can be a very dynamic party indeed...
So once again, for me, it is Democracy, a form of government that allows for more than one party. and more than one point of view that do not cancel each other out, but try to help each other and reach for the best in humanity and people in general...
Answered By: endpov - 6/27/2010