NationStates

I was doing research as always, into political systems. I've really studied each one and have listened to philosophers. I realized that there is no true system which eliminates elitism, hunger, poverty, unemployment etc. Although I am a capitalist economically and a libertarian minarchist politically, I wanted to look for a superior system which can eliminate these things. I was thinking a meritocracy was superior with an intelligence base. I studied a Chinese model which mixes popular vote with merit based rule and it seems pretty superior. I still feel it may not be able to eliminate elitism. I mean it sound like a great system. Everything is focused on problem solving and managing but then it came down to an economic system. Socialism is a mix of cooperative and state ownership. Communism is stateless and classless and ruled by the people. Capitalism is private ownership oriented which has worked way better and improving living standards. Yet all systems have flaws and capitalism can't eliminate theses flaws. I was also getting into Plato's idea of "philosopher kings" governing who loved true knowledge and gave everyone improved lifestyles due to their intelligence and wisdom loving and focused on real problem solving. It is almost identical to an intelligence bases meritocracy. I would like your guys take on this issue and explain to me if you think a system can be created in which eliminates these flaws. I'd also like to know which economic and political systems you feel are superior that solve more problems and improve societies.

One major problem occurring to any of these well-intentioned analyses is the shifting and often ideological definition of 'elitism'.

For example, I might give the generalization that America in some circles may not be considered elitist because there really has never been a system of nobility or aristocracy, but a fairly openly stratified 'social ladder'. At the same time, others may view the stark income inequality between the top 1% and the 'average' American as inherently elitist. The solutions each group finds will be structured differently, one focusing on mitigating social immobility and the other on mitigating social inequality.

Similarly, you seem to hold the virtues of intelligence and merit to light in terms of political structure; others may see a meritocracy as elitist because it adds a qualifier to total political participation, no matter the benefits to rationality and social betterment. Democracy is the only metric that has the significance to such opponents of meritocracy in similar fashion to your value of merit.

This is why I prefer a republic with strong protections for minority rights (i.e. non-electoral common law judicial system, separation of powers between branches, abolition of parliamentary sovereignty, etc.), against overtly majoritarian proportionality or populism in the electoral sphere (i.e. indirect electoral systems, electoral colleges, federalism), as well as mitigated electoral disenfranchisement (i.e. no voter identification or restriction laws, little residency requirements, easy and efficate registration processes [though not automatic upon citizenship].). They help to balance these shifting definitions of what government should mean when the people are the theoretical source of power.

The Electoral College wrote:One major problem occurring to any of these well-intentioned analyses is the shifting and often ideological definition of 'elitism'.

For example, I might give the generalization that America in some circles may not be considered elitist because there really has never been a system of nobility or aristocracy, but a fairly openly stratified 'social ladder'. At the same time, others may view the stark income inequality between the top 1% and the 'average' American as inherently elitist. The solutions each group finds will be structured differently, one focusing on mitigating social immobility and the other on mitigating social inequality.

Similarly, you seem to hold the virtues of intelligence and merit to light in terms of political structure; others may see a meritocracy as elitist because it adds a qualifier to total political participation, no matter the benefits to rationality and social betterment. Democracy is the only metric that has the significance to such opponents of meritocracy in similar fashion to your value of merit.

This is why I prefer a republic with strong protections for minority rights (i.e. non-electoral common law judicial system, separation of powers between branches, abolition of parliamentary sovereignty, etc.), against overtly majoritarian proportionality or populism in the electoral sphere (i.e. indirect electoral systems, electoral colleges, federalism), as well as mitigated electoral disenfranchisement (i.e. no voter identification or restriction laws, little residency requirements, easy and efficate registration processes [though not automatic upon citizenship].). They help to balance these shifting definitions of what government should mean when the people are the theoretical source of power.

I of course support a republic ,because it has so far been more superior in my opinion. I feel checks and balances are needed and support seperation of powers.

So far the most successful states have been the social democrat-esque states, such as the Scandinavian countries, or the Ordoliberal German state. But nonetheless, I don't think there will ever be a perfect ideology, at the very best the individual should have a wide enough choice to pick what seems most beneficial to him/her.

I call it Cuba.

Want poverty?

Go back to the days of Battista.

There were many more poor people then, contrary to the propaganda we are fed.

The Laxus Union wrote:I was doing research as always, into political systems. I've really studied each one and have listened to philosophers. I realized that there is no true system which eliminates elitism, hunger, poverty, unemployment etc.

Yes, there is: communism.

there can, but it depends as much on culture as on ideology, a great deal more actually, and it certainly isn't going to be created by any of the ideologies currently dominant. baha'u'llah's administrative order seems like, or seemed like a step in that direction, but currently it seems to have nearly locked itself out of further optimization. partially i think perhaps as a mater of keeping its head down and not making a target of itself.

the indiginous cultures of the pacific northwest in northamerica, with their potlatching economy is a many thousands of years old near solution to that problem.
again, certainly not without flaws.

ultimately you need a kind of inverted pyramid conceptionally, where more centralized layers serve rather then rule. somewhat like the pierson's puppeteers' system in nevin's ring world.

with the addition of several concepts borrowed from tolkin's middle earth, the mathom house specifically, and several more from my personal experiences in real life, integrating and optomizing them all, is what i've tried to come up with for my cameroi.

but again the main thing, is its going to take a willingness to transcend ideological prejudice, to borrow, integrate, and optomize concepts from all over, but given a culture of willingness to do that, THEN, yes, it certainly CAN be done.

just about every kind of prejudice and chauvanism is an obstical and stumbling block to doing so.
i suspect, after a majority of the human population has starved off and died off, the combination of disease and starvation, there just might, be a LOT less opposition to developing such a thing. you know, like when the survivors reallize it is a matter of their survival and not merely gratification to do so.

and i'm not wishing that condition on anyone, it is what humanity is creating for itself, that dark night of implosion, by its current environmental arrogance.

but that's why i'm saying there will be a very wonderful morning after, or alternatively, we could avoid a lot of that pain by taking appropriate measures now.

A system that eliminates poverty and elitism? S
Sure, it is called communism.

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:

The Laxus Union wrote:I was doing research as always, into political systems. I've really studied each one and have listened to philosophers. I realized that there is no true system which eliminates elitism, hunger, poverty, unemployment etc.

Yes, there is: communism.

You beat me to it, Comrade.

4years wrote:A system that eliminates poverty and elitism? S
Sure, it is called communism.

Minarchist States wrote:

4years wrote:A system that eliminates poverty and elitism?
Sure, it is called communism.

Words are useful things.

Besides communism. Communism never really worked but communes in China pretty much achieved communism.

4years wrote:

Minarchist States wrote:

Words are useful things.

And a picture is a thousand of em. But besides communism, the most rational "utopia" would then be the center right nations of Europe, such as England and Germany. Heck, I am sure if communist revolutionaries from the late 1800s were alive today, they'd describe it as "utopic."

Yes, it is called capitalism and the free market. Eliminate government and you will eliminate elitism and poverty within a generation at most.

Elitism will never entirely be eliminated. Social hierarchies and the broader collective elitism certainly can be, but individual and philosophical elitism will almost certainly persist, albeit to a lesser extent to today. Communism would appear to be the most reasonable system in which to combat these things, though the aforementioned philosophical elitism has been a problem that has plagued the far left throughout its history.

Kaapstad wrote:Yes, it is called capitalism and the free market. Eliminate government and you will eliminate elitism and poverty within a generation at most.

Of course, a system dependent on elitism and poverty for its basic functions would certainly work to eliminate those things.

Threlizdun wrote:Elitism will never entirely be eliminated. Social hierarchies and the broader collective elitism certainly can be, but individual and philosophical elitism will almost certainly persist, albeit to a lesser extent to today. Communism would appear to be the most reasonable system in which to combat these things, though the aforementioned philosophical elitism has been a problem that has plagued the far left throughout its history.

One of the most tragic stories in the annals of left-wing activism has got to be the Russian Populists. Earnestly seeking to cast off that very ivory-tower elitism, they flocked to the fields and the workshops...

...where they were roundly rejected, met with suspicion, and quite often turned in to the police.

Threlizdun wrote:Elitism will never entirely be eliminated. Social hierarchies and the broader collective elitism certainly can be, but individual and philosophical elitism will almost certainly persist, albeit to a lesser extent to today. Communism would appear to be the most reasonable system in which to combat these things, though the aforementioned philosophical elitism has been a problem that has plagued the far left throughout its history.

Kaapstad wrote:Yes, it is called capitalism and the free market. Eliminate government and you will eliminate elitism and poverty within a generation at most.

Of course, a system dependent on elitism and poverty for its basic functions would certainly work to eliminate those things.

It is not our fault. Look at those truly Dumb Ideologies with capital letters youths are really believing in these days. One can't reasonably not facepalm itself looking at it.

Kaapstad wrote:Yes, it is called capitalism and the free market. Eliminate government and you will eliminate elitism and poverty within a generation at most.

AnMon, I assume? Genuinely curious. I believe capitalism has some ways to go before it becomes utopic, but until then the states power will have to substitute what the businesses cannot maintain.

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:One of the most tragic stories in the annals of left-wing activism has got to be the Russian Populists. Earnestly seeking to cast off that very ivory-tower elitism, they flocked to the fields and the workshops...

...where they were roundly rejected, met with suspicion, and quite often turned in to the police.

And of course by a group whose ideological basis was grounded far more in the proposals of Russian Populists than it actually was in Marxism.

Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro wrote:It is not our fault. Look at those truly Dumb Ideologies with capital letters youths are really believing in these days. One can't reasonably not facepalm itself looking at it.

It's hardly a new phenomenon. The great split between the Marxists and the Anarchists that occurred within the First International Workingmen's Association is something I would have to say is easily the greatest tragedy that has ever befallen the left.

Minarchist States wrote:

Kaapstad wrote:Yes, it is called capitalism and the free market. Eliminate government and you will eliminate elitism and poverty within a generation at most.

AnMon, I assume? Genuinely curious. I believe capitalism has some ways to go before it becomes utopic, but until then the states power will have to substitute what the businesses cannot maintain.

How could capitalism even theoretically become utopian?

4years wrote:

Minarchist States wrote:

Words are useful things.

Sometimes pictures speak louder than words

The Laxus Union wrote:I was doing research as always, into political systems. I've really studied each one and have listened to philosophers. I realized that there is no true system which eliminates elitism, hunger, poverty, unemployment etc. Although I am a capitalist economically and a libertarian minarchist politically, I wanted to look for a superior system which can eliminate these things. I was thinking a meritocracy was superior with an intelligence base. I studied a Chinese model which mixes popular vote with merit based rule and it seems pretty superior. I still feel it may not be able to eliminate elitism. I mean it sound like a great system. Everything is focused on problem solving and managing but then it came down to an economic system. Socialism is a mix of cooperative and state ownership. Communism is stateless and classless and ruled by the people. Capitalism is private ownership oriented which has worked way better and improving living standards. Yet all systems have flaws and capitalism can't eliminate theses flaws. I was also getting into Plato's idea of "philosopher kings" governing who loved true knowledge and gave everyone improved lifestyles due to their intelligence and wisdom loving and focused on real problem solving. It is almost identical to an intelligence bases meritocracy. I would like your guys take on this issue and explain to me if you think a system can be created in which eliminates these flaws. I'd also like to know which economic and political systems you feel are superior that solve more problems and improve societies.

No system yet has eliminated hunger, poverty, elitism, and unemployment.....I doubt any system could do such a thing.

4years wrote:A system that eliminates poverty and elitism? S
Sure, it is called communism.

Replace total poverty of the few with near poverty of the many? Super.

Threlizdun wrote:

Minarchist States wrote:
AnMon, I assume? Genuinely curious. I believe capitalism has some ways to go before it becomes utopic, but until then the states power will have to substitute what the businesses cannot maintain.

How could capitalism even theoretically become utopian?

Through progress and investment. Like I said, someone living a few hundred years ago would consider this society to be much better than their own.

Old West, Frontier-style anarchism

If you're an elitist, you're gonna get robbed, and if you're poor, well you just struck it rich by robbing said elitist.

And if you've got a problem, you can blow a man's brains out a high-noon.

YEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!