You make misapprehension that capitalism is a form of government; it is not. Almost all modern western countries have a socialist capitalistic parlimentary republic, with a few constitutional monarchies which, in practice, are mostly the same thingFederalist92 said:
Poll: How to please everyone and stop wars. It may work.
- Thread starter Federalist92
- Start date
I think that if countries have a disagreement, instead of threatening each other with armies and nuclear weaponry, the leaders of the countries, the people who started the disagreement, should have an all-out battle in the middle of a desert somewhere, armed only with a pistol loaded with one bullet, and their hands and teeth.
Whoever survives wins.
Whoever survives wins.
this.Glefistus said:
You totally discounted the human factor.greed lust gluttony wrath sloth and any others im forgetting. people are addicted to the drama they create. without war, there would be no military. some people have lived their entire lives in the military, only to have that taken away? i dont think theyd take it laying down. the world is the way it is because thats how people want it. the only way you can change it to your liking is to force your ideals upon everyone else. because in the end, you're not doing it for them, your doing it for you.
see, this kind of "patriotism" is why this idea wont work. dude You guys fought a war to assert your "rights"? so did the rest of the world, nobody cares.(not that id want this plan to work anyway,since ima gonna rule the world! bwahahahahahahahaaaa)SinisterGehe said:
I'm mean this with the minimum insult possible but you're either grossly ignorant or incredibly stupid.Federalist92 said:
You've list a mixture of government types and economic systems, and one political institution for good measure. What is 'A Senate' supposed to mean in terms of government? You can't have one or the other, a country is defined by both - a Capitalist Democracy, a Socialist Theocracy, etc etc.
Monarchy and Theocracy are governmental systems. The first doesn't exist in any form other than a superficial nod and the second is the most repressive form of governance. Neither indicate the economic system the country would operate under. Anarchy is true capitalism in that there is no government to restrict corporate power and as such would mean rule by companies.
Socialism and Capitalism are the two extremes that 99% of all countries find themselves in the scale of. Even China has capitalist elements and even the USA has a social welfare system. A country cannot be exclusively be defined by its economic system because it leaves out sovereignty.
Actual governance is a minor element in whether or not states go to war. The only thing I can think of is to point you towards the Democratic Peace Thesis which postulates that Western Democracies do not go to war therefore in order to create peace you must convert the world into stable democracies.
The OP's idea sounds much like what we have today.......so the lazy option would not do anything to similar....if do anything at all..........and save your effort for a more radical overhaul of world politics and economics.Bernzz said:There's no option in the poll that goes along the lines of "Screw this thinking; give everyone weed!"
I want that option.
Do you know what my original thought was.rossatdi said:
just on capitalist society and just one socialist society.
Can you see a BIG problem there.
Think through recent history and you'll find it.
I had to put in some other ones, but i was running out of ideas.
can you imagine what the responses would have been if i had gone with my original idea.
but anyway.
how could that NOT be insulting.
doesnt matter now anyhow.
youve given your lovely opinion that i value so much.
The problem with a lot of those political ideologies is that they don't work in practice. I'd love to see a successful anarchist state that wasn't plagued by crime and incompetence.
Alternatively we could unite everybody under my rule and everyone would be happy!
Alternatively we could unite everybody under my rule and everyone would be happy!
Apologies but your theory literally makes no sense.Federalist92 said:
A monarchy can be capitalist and a theocracy can be socialist. You divided four states into red, blue, tall and short. They're not mutually exclusive!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government#Types_of_State_Governments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_systems#Division_of_economic_systems
If you're going to make a highly theoretical political/economic theory you could at least ground yourself in the relevant theory so it makes more sense.
--->
As for the general principle of splitting up the world into the systems people want to live under... I would imagine the liberal democracy with a good welfare system would probably be very crowded. I can't imagine many would show up for the newly created monarchy's first day.
1. That's not even close a complete list of political systems. In fact, Capitalism and Socialism are socio-economic structures, not political systems. EDIT, and the UK monarchy is hardly the main political system anymore.
2. It isn't the political system that people prefer, it is the actions thereof. A monarch, senate, dictator, etc... could have any alignment in policy. Pro-life/pro-choice, gun control/guns for all, flat/percent/bracket tax, public/private school/health/saftey/transporation/utilities. Any number of controversial to minute policies. It's the choices made, not who/how they're made.
3. Conflict occurs over finite resources. Someone is going to want what someone else has. Be it land, natural resources, technology, whatever. If they can't settle over trade agreements or other issues, it can degrade to war no matter what political system you have internally. It won't always degrade that way, but there's no fool-proof way to avoid it either.
2. It isn't the political system that people prefer, it is the actions thereof. A monarch, senate, dictator, etc... could have any alignment in policy. Pro-life/pro-choice, gun control/guns for all, flat/percent/bracket tax, public/private school/health/saftey/transporation/utilities. Any number of controversial to minute policies. It's the choices made, not who/how they're made.
3. Conflict occurs over finite resources. Someone is going to want what someone else has. Be it land, natural resources, technology, whatever. If they can't settle over trade agreements or other issues, it can degrade to war no matter what political system you have internally. It won't always degrade that way, but there's no fool-proof way to avoid it either.
Umm... I think religion was more of a cause for war then government type was... actually, only war that comes to mind about government was 'Nam when America was scared of communist taking over... And, war in the middle east, religion (with soldiers over there that make about as much difference as 4 spanish soldiers would in the middle of Gettysburg), WWII kinda had ties to religion with the killing of Jews, the Crusades, and many others...
Also, this.Nuke_em_05 said:
Basis of all politics and economics: Infinite wants, finite resources.
Marx always said that if you could beat that you could have Communism. Shame no one paid attention to the part where he said that you needed capitalism to get there.
