Here's a link to my mono-tone robot voice reading this post instead.
It's election year, and with it, also a year of many debates. We have people from all different schools of thought, different political ideas,
different stances on different issues. We have a lot of talk of capitalism, socialism, the fears of communism, the fears of corporatism and
theocracy.I am here not to posit my opinion on any of the issues, nor give my opinion on anything left/right, conservative nor liberal, I am here to
make a case of what creates the most successful, or dominant economical/political systems.
There's arguments on all sides of this issue, whether it be the vices or virtues of capitalism or socialism, when talking about the success of
business or the detriments of the average man- Some relating the two to each other whether it be a mutual benefit, others deeming them to be opposing
forces. It seems the ideas are discussed a lot, and each side has their point to make, but if you'll stay with me a minute, I would like to present my
own thoughts on the matter.
First, realize that my title is meant to be read as successful and dominant being different from each other. I realize "dominant" can be defined as
superior/better, but in this case I mean governing, controlling, demanding. Second, for the sake of this post, I am defining a successful economy as
one that benefits the most people, keeping in mind life, liberty, and happiness - and things like financial security, and health.
With those two points in mind, let's dive into this.
So, big picture - What makes an economy successful?
I believe that the most successful economies/societies are those in which the largest amount of people desire to be a part of, regardless of their
position in that society. This is the most essential part of an economy in a free nation, but also the most unreliable as it requires extreme honesty
of each person, and for each person to be very self-aware of how willing they are to contribute to that society, and also unreliable as not everyone
can agree. It would require a person to know what they want regardless of their position. It would require a rich businessman to be honest about what
he would want if he went bankrupt, or became sick, went without food - overall faced harder times, but would also require a poor man to know what
situation he would like to be in if he started his own business and found himself much better off. Would he be happy to pay the taxes that once
helped/could have helped him put food on his table?
These questions, whether or not they are answered honestly or reliably, seem to give rise to our division in opinion when it comes to economic
practices and political policies concerning taxes, welfare, etc. You have each person weighing in accordance to their opinion, according to what they
desire to give in certain circumstances, and what they desire to receive in other circumstances. I would assert that any economic system could be
successful if it were one that was based on mutual consensus.
So, we have disagreements on basic ideas, and honesty cannot be assumed within such a system. There's too many variables, and too many people that
only experience ( or feel they experience ) one side. Some may feel they are poor, and will always be poor - And may not be able to give an honest
opinion of how they would want to be treated when rich, and others are better off, feel secure, and are confident in their position and may not be
able to be honest how they would want to live if they fell into harder times.
These fallacies within the system do make it harder to find a best scenario, but not impossible. Civil debates, honest discussion, education,
political involvement, and more can overcome these faults, and a system in which represents the most people in the best way it can, can be found and
implemented. Our history in the USA shows us this is true - That people can come together, discuss the things that are most important to us, and come
to an agreement that ensures life, liberty, and happiness.
Unfortunately, we no longer have these honest discussions. The average is no longer educated in such matters, nor politically involved at any level
above their own personal interactions with other individuals. We are no longer a people that collaborate, no longer a people who seek mutually
beneficial circumstances, and because of this we have become a people who no longer work together towards life, liberty, and happiness. These
unfortunate circumstances give rise to the next matter at hand: Dominant political systems.
Dominant - (Synonyms) presiding, ruling, governing, controlling, commanding, ascendant, supreme, authoritative
Within a system where willful collaboration and freedom are no longer a goal of the average person, the control is taken out of the hands of the
average person, and is given to others that are outside of us. When we are seen as too indecisive or unwilling to make our own choices, others will
step in and start to make the decisions for us. Debates and discussions are no longer in the interest of assuring life, liberty, and happiness as this
would be counter-intuitive to dominance - debates are now about smaller issues blown up into bigger issues to assure we are always divided as a
people, to assure we will never see that collaboration and mutual respect between all classes of people is possible. This creates a political system
in which all of the control is in the hands of those we believe are fighting for our cause - This creates a dominant political system, both
ruling/authoritative, and a very strong system. This is not a system that will go away easily, this is not a system that will collapse at the first
sign of resistance against it - The manipulation and complex design of this system, which has the majority believing in it, will not be easily
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santayana
We always hear that we can learn from history, that we can learn from past wars, that we can observe dictators of the past in order to identify modern
circumstances in which we can avoid. I believe we can do just this - Look at the ways in which people were divided in the past, look into the reasons
that people gave up their freedoms.. However, I also believe that we are facing our own circumstances. Technology, society, cities, the work place,
there's so many things that are different, so we also need to learn from our own times. We also need to be able to take lessons from the past and
modify them and translate them into lessons that can be applied to modern times, to be applicable to the exact problems we face today.
With all of this said, I believe we CAN move towards collaboration to find life, liberty, and happiness. We can turn our eco-political system into
successful based on will and collaboration, and get away from this dominance-system which is based on division and agendas.
How this can be done? I won't leave that up to my opinion.
I'll leave it up to us.
edit on 16-2-2016 by deadlyhope because: (no reason given)