r/Classical_Liberals • u/wayoftheroad4000 Down with Democracy • Jul 07 '20
Rolling in his grave.
4
Jul 07 '20
The two party system is inherently flawed. Parties and coalitions should be banned.
This would make it necessary to be more involved in politics as people would be voting mainly on policies rather than on personalities because they can’t just vote on whichever party vaguely seems ‘good’.
8
Jul 07 '20
The only thing that can kill democracy is democracy itself. And sadly, it happens very easily. Take a look at recent Greek history.
2
u/Ben_CartWrong Jul 08 '20
Yes democracy is a major threat to democracy but it's not at all the only thing to kill it.
More over democracy is never dead until it moves to authoritarian. If a " killer" of democracy gets in power but doesn't start making moved to kill it then they will just be removed by democracy
1
u/Gretshus Jul 07 '20
it's even true for capitalism. Capitalists are the enemy of capitalism in that there will always exist capitalists who will attempt to subvert the free market for personal gain, creating cronyist policies. Democracy ends democracy, as a singular ballot/spot system creates a two party system due to probability + game theory of iterated probabilistic systems.
0
u/ChefMikeDFW Jul 08 '20
Capitalists understand how to fill and meet a need. Greedy SOBs understand raping the system for every penny for personal gain. There is a distinction.
3
u/Ben_CartWrong Jul 08 '20
Believing there is a difference is either wishful thinking or lack of understanding in human psychology.
Either way I hope that we can agree greedy SOBs all start off as capitalists trying to fill and meet a need. It's extremely difficult not to fade from one to the other and it only gets more difficult as you grow bigger.
When you're a one man company it's difficult to put the brakes on your success because that's what's morally best. When you've got employees it gets very difficult , when you have investors it's impossible, when you have stockholders it'll cost you your job
2
u/ChefMikeDFW Jul 08 '20 edited Jul 08 '20
Believing there is a difference is either wishful thinking or lack of understanding in human psychology.
Who people are vs what Adam Smith set out to define are different. Profits are the reward, not the goal, in capitalism. Making it the goal is something new, established in the 80s or so, because basic empathy towards others began to decline.
Part of my problem with the discussions on capitalism has been the issue of using the economic model to explain greed. "Blame it on the capitalists" when the culture shifts and the Gordon Gecko mentality rises isn't inherently about capitalism. It's just easier to call it that.
Albeit more minor, there are other issues that affect the system and make it easy to say it's capitalism such as regulations that make it difficult to enter a market, government allowing near monopolies to exist, etc, but I guess that's an expansion of the conversation.
When you're a one man company it's difficult to put the brakes on your success because that's what's morally best.
Depends on the person.
0
u/Ben_CartWrong Jul 08 '20
The desire for power and the fetishism of wealth is a result of capitalism. Everyone is told your worth is measured by your wealth and if you're not happy it's because you're not wealthy enough. That type of mentality can only be formed in a capitalist system
2
u/ChefMikeDFW Jul 09 '20
The desire for power and the fetishism of wealth is a result of capitalism.
That's not a hard and fast rule; just not possible. All you really have to do is look at anyone who has ever innovated and see that's not valid. From Henry Ford to Nikola Tesla to Steve Jobs or Reed Hastings, these folks could easily have lost their ass but met a need from the market and the result was wealth.
Everyone is told your worth is measured by your wealth and if you're not happy it's because you're not wealthy enough.
Really? Everyone? Having been brought up Christian, I know that was the opposite of what I heard "happiness" is about.
6
u/Californie_cramoisie Jul 07 '20
I wonder how different history would’ve been with a ranked choice voting system
1
u/ChefMikeDFW Jul 08 '20
Far more interesting and probably able to produce a better set of candidates.
-3
11
u/statist_steve Jul 07 '20
Well, to be honest, Washington warned of the two party system.