|
Aswad -> RE: Socialism (2/16/2008 8:09:47 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zensee
Yeah - this ties to the salary cap thread. A firefighter risks their life daily for a working wage. A sport star may get millions per appearance, just because the market can bear the price. That is just madness. But how do you level the field without creating a universal schedule of salaries?
Capitalism is a fact, not an ideology, IMO.
Unless every person is able to provide for themselves, entirely, there must be an exchange of goods or services. These have an intrinsic value, along with a supply level and a demand level. The question becomes what value is used as the basis for these exchanges, along with what regulation- if any- is applied to the exchanges, and who applies it. Capitalism uses supply and demand as the value basis in exchanges, and the degree of regulation is typically small. Alternately, you can set an arbitrary value (cf. salary caps, fixed wages, etc.). One model that is rarely used, is to apply the intrinsic value; the services of a doctor are arguably of higher intrinsic value than those of a sanitation worker, and similar things go for e.g. firefighters. The inherent problem is resolving (and quantifying) less obvious variations in the intrinsic value of the work done; that may be why it isn't a particularly common model. Of course, hybrid approaches are also possible, and most systems tend to be hybrids. I think realizing that is useful in making a good hybrid, as it makes it clear that such is what one is doing, rather than viewing it in terms of compromising a pure model, or "patching" one.
Leveling the playing field requires one of two things: local cooperation, or central regulation.
People arguably do not, as a rule, possess the macro-level social awareness and moral fortitude to realize this leveling of the playing field at the local level (cf. the tragedy of the commons, lynching, etc.; without regulation, a group of average people is arguably less than the sum of the individuals, and possibly less than their average). Hence, the alternative is central regulation, which has its own problems, particularly in a representative model of government, and particularly in the presence of lobbying and media pressure (cf. propaganda model of the media; systemic bias; etc.).
On a related note, which is related only in the sense that it is illustrative, Norway tried proportional fines at one point.
A problem with fines is that they do not provide any actual equality for the law. Before we got a dot marking system for traffic violations, fines were used for most violations. A result of this was that, for instance, one of the bigshots up here found it more practical to have the bills delivered to his personal secretary for payment, rather than actually getting a licence to drive a car in the first place. Now, in that particular case, I don't see a problem, because he is one of the better drivers out there, and does have a licence for racing. It just brings in more money for the state, almost like a donation. But a lot of people find the principle of equality for the law to trump practical considerations, so it generates a huge media circus. On the upside, we got dot marking.
Now, in order to give functional equality for the law, an arrangement was tried some years back, wherein the fines were proportional to income. Thus, the sting would be the same for everyone, as would the preventative effect. However, this immediately caused a lot of sensationalist headlines about people being fined $10.000 for parking in the wrong place. And public opinion was swayed, quickly. People called out for an end tto the arrangement. Thus, the media circus effectively resulted in functional justice being replaced with the superficial appearance of it.
It is ever the burden of a democracy that the inmates will be running the asylum.
quote:
Striking the balance between control and freedom is the constant dilemma of societies. Both are necessary. Both see the other as enemy.
Indeed.
quote:
Any suggestions?
Proceed from the base assumption that the sole purpose of a society is to act as an amplifier for all citizens.
More realistically, organize government according to proven principles, sound engineeriing and proper delegation of responsibility.
For instance Parkinsons' Law. A parliamentary body that is in excess of a certain number of individuals will be ineffective. Ten seats in the core government and a hundred in a hearing body that is to vote on motions, is workable. Let elections start with a qualifying round whereby a thousand candidate slots are elected on a party basis. This means anyone representing more than 0.1% of the population as a first choice is viable. Then do an elimination round, where votes are cast for the party one would least like to see in a position of government; the hundred real seats are distributed based on this. The real seats vote on the core government in the same manner.
A consequence of this is that it amplifies the only advantages of democracy, such as stability. It also goes a step further than the usual models in terms of being representative. Without elimination rounds, a democracy tends toward a few stable configurations (such as the two-party system in the US), and represents a choice of lesser evils, along with pure majority rule, which must then be buffered by disregarding the population's thoughs on minorities. Democracy is, after all, two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
But what is a society about, if not finding workable compromises and amplifying individual potential?
That is where the addition of elimination rounds comes in. It allows you to say "No" in addition to "Yes." And a consequence of this, is that the parties that are the best compromise for the whole population are the ones that are brought to the forefront. The dead vote problem is significantly ameliorated, as any candidate that is the first choice of at least 0.1% of the population is in the running, and a lot of people may find those rather palatable when the options are on the table. Parties that have workable ideas are more likely to rise to prominence over time, such as my favorite party up here, which has few agendas beyond making shit work. They're only the first choice of about 5% of the population, but the second choice of about 25% of the population, and disliked by only a small fraction of the population. With the exception of the labor party, the rest of the parties are much more polarized, with people having strong opinions about them both ways and the average tending toward the population having no net desire for them. A clear majority government would be formed between the socialist labor party and the liberal party, and they've been proven to work well together in the past, with peak popularities of about two thirds of the population for both.
I suspect that lobbying would shift slightly more in the general direction of trying to sway the population, i.e. effecting actual change.
Controversial political moves are likely to be much more heavily suppressed in such a model, and penalties become more real.
I have yet to encounter any human endeavour wherein a balance of positive and negative feedback wasn't critical.
If government is to be representative, I say let it represent the entirety of the public voice.
And if we are to cooperate, then, by all means, let us cooperate.
Health,
al-Aswad.
|
|
|
|
