View Single Post
Old 11-04-2005, 02:10 AM   #95
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by TStone
Now, anyone can break out of their class system and either go up or down the chain. That is irrefutable, which is why we are not, per say, a product of our environment. However, going up IS a lot more difficult than coming down. Always has been, always will be. When you factor in discrimination; the good old boy equation doesn’t leave much room at the top. Then you have single mothers straight out of high school with no skills, no education to speak of, no way to attain these things because any free time they do have is devoted to child care. We have a penal system that embraces minority majority without actually addressing their needs, and a majority minority that is born suspicious, which inevitably begets more of the same criminal fodder.

Meh, it’s just so goddamn frustrating.

Peter, you are correct, but only insofar as you can ink the idea on paper. If, hypothetically, such a system existed then the people would need more power to balance the scales. Think of it this way, the figurehead in that scenario would be limited in power, and make only those decisions the people he or she represented agreed with. There would need to be a direct line, of some form, of communication between the leader and the people, without the bureaucracy of a Senate and House of Representatives. When the people were dissatisfied with their leader, they would be able to immediately vote him or her out and appoint a new leader. So a true Figurehead, of the people, by the people.
I have two thoughts for you, the first in regards to the first paragraph.

Always have, and always will is a fallacy, it is only that way if you take the most convenient, easiest, and shortest route. This can happen at any time which is why systems tend to become corrupt - even when they start off fantastically due to a few good men or women (for example, the founding fathers). As a nation, as humanity, groups must always strive to become better and to fix the problems with our societies and society in general. The trick is not to step backwards, solving a problem by reverting to a greater one. For example, the welfare system, if you scrap it, you simply create more problems that the ones you solve, i.e. yeah, people wouldn't be able to take advantage of welfare, but then the people who can't work, or want to work, but haven't had a break yet suffer. Or if you disagree with that example, there are many more. A friend of mine put forth the class system as a solution to the youth social problems in England. Unfortunately, bringing back the class system would bring back all the problems associated with it, like, being stuck in shitty jobs based not on your qualifications, but who your parents were. While parts of the class system still obviously exist (old money families etc.) bringing back all the unfairness would be detrimental to society in a much more profound way than a group of the disaffected. As we progress, new problems and new loopholes and ways to game the system come in to play, but this is no reason to keep turning back the clock to times that never existed where everyone lived in rural paradise.

Now the second.

The thing is all systems are only ideal on paper. I do, however, think you're looking in the wrong direction for a 'solution'. First though, is that solution thing, there isn't one, what we can do however, is start off with a good system and make improvements, that's about it. As we've seen so far over the world, the elected representative system, despite all its flaws seems to work better than any others tried so far. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try other things to see if their time is right, in fact, it's inevitable, all of the leading countries and governments have social reforms on a regular basis and we rarely become far worse off because of them. So, in my opinion the way to make things better would be to go in the other direction, instead of more power and to create, essentially, a short lived beneficial dictatorship in the hopes that if the power is handed around quickly they won't fuck up too badly is to have more choice, in the US specifically, (although this applies to all the other leading democracies) to break down the two party system and by doing so, allow the people to be heard more directly rather than by two, rather inflexible voices. Personally, I think this is inevitable. When there are more voices representing the public, there will be more sway between parties which means a minority that will vote strategically rather than for who represents them can't force a party to do things their own way. First things first, attitudes need to change and presidents (not just the current one) need to stop making policy like they have a mandate of all the people, and start acting like employees.
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote