[QUOTE="Democratik"] I think America should fund campaigns and parties through taxes. Many European countries do this, and forbid them from receiving corporate money. This assures two things 1) No single party or dual party dominance 2) The Parties work for the people, not the corporations. As it currently stands in the usmattbbpl
That does sound possible, but the American people would never go with the idea of their dollars going to a party that they completely disagree with. I think the bigger potential issue is this: If the current government controls taxes and the taxes are what funds campaigns, couldn't that potentially give the current administration's party a lot of leverage in elections if they're corrupt?This is true, you can't stop corruption and people being greedy. Also someone could form a party and run for an office, but not actually run for office and keep all the money for him/herslesf.
[QUOTE="alphamale1989"]According to Freud every young boy wan't to have sex with his mother but eventually learns to deny themselves this desire due to casteration anxiety - the fear that his father would casterate him. Women don't experience this phase, rather they're jealous of the male organ and will remain so for the rest of thier lives. BUT despite this Freud is considered to be the father of Moden psychology and most of Frueds theories make more sense than this one.Democratik
I can safely say ive never had any fear my dad would castrate me, nor did I ever want to sleep with my mom. It seems to be against most animalistic behavior to actually want relativesYou didn't want to sleep with your mom, but you subconcios mind did, atleast that's what Freud said.
[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="Democratik"] theres really no "one good" system that im aware of. Ive noticed that social democracy tends to work out quite well at this time. In terms of libertarian philosophy, the only thing consistent is anarcho capitalism. Im almost certain that nobody wants that
Democratik
The only good thing I can say for our (US) current political system is that it swing back and form so neither party extreme gets to fully implement their ideals. Taken to the full extremes, they would both be disastrous.
We're seeing the fruits of a long term right wing power hold right now. The left has finally taken hold and is beginning to swing the other way. Sooner or later it too will go too far and the sands will shift once again. At least, that's how I see it.
I think America should fund campaigns and parties through taxes. Many European countries do this, and forbid them from receiving corporate money. This assures two things 1) No single party or dual party dominance 2) The Parties work for the people, not the corporations. As it currently stands in the us That does sound possible, but the American people would never go with the idea of their dollars going to a party that they completely disagree with.
[QUOTE="mattbbpl"] So what's the term for a good, sensible middle ground as opposed to all the unrealistic extremes being thrown around?mattbbpl
I guess Libertarianism, but even that has some holes. No way am I libertarian on economic issues. That is to say, I could be if they weren't so darn extreme. They want a nearly pure capitalist economy with no anti-trust laws. Talk about economic suicide. I guess there is no middle ground.
He's pretty much the father of modern psychology. Even if his ideas are widely disputed, he was one of the first people to try and understand the intricacies of the inner mind.
Unless you are an anarcho capitalist, you really have no claim to the title individualist. So what's the term for a good, sensible middle ground as opposed to all the unrealistic extremes being thrown around? I guess Libertarianism, but even that has some holes.
[QUOTE="Democratik"] the original post answered all your questions, and statements.Democratik
So then I should support a society that would destroy everything that makes me who I am? Absolutely not. I would rather be ridiculed because at least then I can fight against it. Like it or not, what you're proposing would destroy everything that makes people who they are, including yourself.
To take this argument to its extreme form, would you be willing to give up everything that makes you who you are simply to be fed by a begrudging master? I sure as hell wouldn't.
No, i'm not saying that. You havent the slighest clue what im talking about. Im clearly justifying taxation. I am also arguing for more. Mostly on the level of Norway, Sweden etc. You're kind of trying to turn this into something its not.People can't afford to give more.
Log in to comment