Where did it all go wrong?

[Anonymous]

Sox is awesome. He's hawt too.

No doubt for a former police officer, no whining and just get the job done is their trait.

He was a cop when the job was not a libtard chess piece.

[Bricktop]

No offense Brick, but you do a lot of pissing and moaning, but I don't see you offering any alternatives. I don't know what to either.

Fair comment, but in the distant past I have advocated what I believe might be worthwhile changes.



First and foremost, the idea of "representative" democracy must be dismantled. Democracy has been usurped by political parties who's DNA comes from political ideology. Politicians do not represent their constituents, but their preferred ideology.



Secondly, the notion that "one size fits all" is the basis for governing our society has to be abandoned. Humans are diverse in all manner or ways with different ideas on how they wish to be governed and the rules and conventions they live under. The idea that "democracy" provides a level playing for everyone is fatally flawed. Under western democratic processes it is entirely possible for a government to take power with less than 50% of the population voting for them. In fact, governments can be formed with only 20% of the popular vote. Any election leads to a large proportion of the community "losing". Losing should not be a basis of governance.



Thirdly, all ministers, judges, senior bureacrats and others with lawful authority over society must be appointed by a tribunal appointment in much the same was as juries. Those same tribunals will have the power to remove any person of authority if their conduct is contrary to good government.



Finally, Capitalism is a major problem, but communism is not the solution. We need a new economic social model that ensures wealth is dispersed fairly, entreprenuerism is rewarded but within reasonable bounds, ambition is encouraged and poverty is eliminated. That may sound somewhat Marxist, but I do not advocate for centralised economic planning which is the cornerstone of socialism. Innovation and invention must be left to private individuals who must be rewarded appropriately. I am no Marxist, but some Marxist principles are worthy of consideration.



There you go. I've suggested alternatives. Discuss and debate.

[Zetsu]

No offense Brick, but you do a lot of pissing and moaning, but I don't see you offering any alternatives. I don't know what to either.

Fair comment, but in the distant past I have advocated what I believe might be worthwhile changes.



First and foremost, the idea of "representative" democracy must be dismantled. Democracy has been usurped by political parties who's DNA comes from political ideology. Politicians do not represent their constituents, but their preferred ideology.



Secondly, the notion that "one size fits all" is the basis for governing our society has to be abandoned. Humans are diverse in all manner or ways with different ideas on how they wish to be governed and the rules and conventions they live under. The idea that "democracy" provides a level playing for everyone is fatally flawed. Under western democratic processes it is entirely possible for a government to take power with less than 50% of the population voting for them. In fact, governments can be formed with only 20% of the popular vote. Any election leads to a large proportion of the community "losing". Losing should not be a basis of governance.



Thirdly, all ministers, judges, senior bureacrats and others with lawful authority over society must be appointed by a tribunal appointment in much the same was as juries. Those same tribunals will have the power to remove any person of authority if their conduct is contrary to good government.



Finally, Capitalism is a major problem, but communism is not the solution. We need a new economic social model that ensures wealth is dispersed fairly, entreprenuerism is rewarded but within reasonable bounds, ambition is encouraged and poverty is eliminated. That may sound somewhat Marxist, but I do not advocate for centralised economic planning which is the cornerstone of socialism. Innovation and invention must be left to private individuals who must be rewarded appropriately. I am no Marxist, but some Marxist principles are worthy of consideration.



There you go. I've suggested alternatives. Discuss and debate.

I do agree and strongly support individuals that contribute among the most deserve a greater reward than just commissions and/or bonuses.  The leading sales employees in my dad's company earns over $120,000 USD annually but even with that income my brother admits they deserve more if compared proportionally with the other average sales staff's salary.



In regards to running a business with reasonable bounds that's something I can't really agree on, I do admit I loathe like the idea of a big business just buying out a competitor, but without big business or capitalism, we'd really wouldn't have smart phones, computers, video games, etc.  I really believe if the US didn't burn their money in wars, their cities would look a lot more prosperous.  The thing is business looks really rewarding from a non-businessman's perspective, but in the end it's really similar to gambling, just that we don't notice the fact that average business goes bankrupt in 5 years.



Meanwhile when it comes to welfare, handing out money at the cost of tax payers should be the last resort, since it never solves anything but only making individuals and business more sluggish, hence why American and even English car manufacturers have so much QC issues is they lack the drive to improve, since if they're on the verge of going out of business the government always funds them to stay alive.  What people need is not money, but motivation and the desire to succeed.

[Anonymous]

No offense Brick, but you do a lot of pissing and moaning, but I don't see you offering any alternatives. I don't know what to either.

Fair comment, but in the distant past I have advocated what I believe might be worthwhile changes.



First and foremost, the idea of "representative" democracy must be dismantled. Democracy has been usurped by political parties who's DNA comes from political ideology. Politicians do not represent their constituents, but their preferred ideology.



Secondly, the notion that "one size fits all" is the basis for governing our society has to be abandoned. Humans are diverse in all manner or ways with different ideas on how they wish to be governed and the rules and conventions they live under. The idea that "democracy" provides a level playing for everyone is fatally flawed. Under western democratic processes it is entirely possible for a government to take power with less than 50% of the population voting for them. In fact, governments can be formed with only 20% of the popular vote. Any election leads to a large proportion of the community "losing". Losing should not be a basis of governance.



Thirdly, all ministers, judges, senior bureacrats and others with lawful authority over society must be appointed by a tribunal appointment in much the same was as juries. Those same tribunals will have the power to remove any person of authority if their conduct is contrary to good government.



Finally, Capitalism is a major problem, but communism is not the solution. We need a new economic social model that ensures wealth is dispersed fairly, entreprenuerism is rewarded but within reasonable bounds, ambition is encouraged and poverty is eliminated. That may sound somewhat Marxist, but I do not advocate for centralised economic planning which is the cornerstone of socialism. Innovation and invention must be left to private individuals who must be rewarded appropriately. I am no Marxist, but some Marxist principles are worthy of consideration.



There you go. I've suggested alternatives. Discuss and debate.

It's been said on this forum before that we no longer have a true free enterprise model..



It's kind of like China where companies are extensions of the government..



That is certainly true of big tech.

[Anonymous]

So, it's Sunday and I'm sitting here thinking...where did it all go wrong?



It's clear the our democratically run societies are broken and fragmented. It's clear our systems are dysfunctional and incapable of governing us effectively and efficiently, given the ideological divides in our communities. Governments in western democracies do not have the capacity to unite, when they themselves are fractured along ideological fault lines...left or right.



Yet it wasn't so long ago that we lived in more harmonious times, when debates could be civil, agreements to disagree were common, and differing views were respected.



So, where did it all began to fracture?



My belief is it was the global warming/climate change issue that exposed and exploited the inherent weaknesses of our systems of governance and set us on the path of division and disunity.



From that divide, all others followed. Hatred, fury and anger replaced respect, moderation and calm.



That is not to say that alarmists were right or wrong...although I remain skeptical. It is just an opinion that it became the major fault line that compelled people to become more militant and strident, opening the door for radical elements to rise and exacerbate the disassembly of community cohesion.



It wasn't always like this.



 ac_dunno

It was definitely climate change. Every issue now becomes all or nothing.

It is the biggest issue according to the federal government.

[Anonymous]

No offense Brick, but you do a lot of pissing and moaning, but I don't see you offering any alternatives. I don't know what to either.

Fair comment, but in the distant past I have advocated what I believe might be worthwhile changes.



First and foremost, the idea of "representative" democracy must be dismantled. Democracy has been usurped by political parties who's DNA comes from political ideology. Politicians do not represent their constituents, but their preferred ideology.



Secondly, the notion that "one size fits all" is the basis for governing our society has to be abandoned. Humans are diverse in all manner or ways with different ideas on how they wish to be governed and the rules and conventions they live under. The idea that "democracy" provides a level playing for everyone is fatally flawed. Under western democratic processes it is entirely possible for a government to take power with less than 50% of the population voting for them. In fact, governments can be formed with only 20% of the popular vote. Any election leads to a large proportion of the community "losing". Losing should not be a basis of governance.



Thirdly, all ministers, judges, senior bureacrats and others with lawful authority over society must be appointed by a tribunal appointment in much the same was as juries. Those same tribunals will have the power to remove any person of authority if their conduct is contrary to good government.



Finally, Capitalism is a major problem, but communism is not the solution. We need a new economic social model that ensures wealth is dispersed fairly, entreprenuerism is rewarded but within reasonable bounds, ambition is encouraged and poverty is eliminated. That may sound somewhat Marxist, but I do not advocate for centralised economic planning which is the cornerstone of socialism. Innovation and invention must be left to private individuals who must be rewarded appropriately. I am no Marxist, but some Marxist principles are worthy of consideration.



There you go. I've suggested alternatives. Discuss and debate.

It's been said on this forum before that we no longer have a true free enterprise model..



It's kind of like China where companies are extensions of the government..



That is certainly true of big tech.

We don't have a free market anymore. What we have now is what nazi Germany-monopolized crony capitlism. The government picks and chooses winners and losers. The winners get taxpayer subsidies. The losers get onerous regulations or a big fat no.

[Bricktop]

In regards to running a business with reasonable bounds that's something I can't really agree on, I do admit I loathe like the idea of a big business just buying out a competitor, but without big business or capitalism, we'd really wouldn't have smart phones, computers, video games, etc.  I really believe if the US didn't burn their money in wars, their cities would look a lot more prosperous.  The thing is business looks really rewarding from a non-businessman's perspective, but in the end it's really similar to gambling, just that we don't notice the fact that average business goes bankrupt in 5 years.

Great point.



I fully agree that a future society must be economically flexible enough in order to achieve the things you've described above.



We must have a society that thrives on and rewards invention and innovation. But we cannot persist with unhindered and unbridled accumulation of wealth whilst people struggle with their daily lives. It is the opposite end of the spectrum with the welfare you mention at the other.



Welfare does not improve society, but neither do multi-billionaires.We should not have ultra rich people flying in space and wallowing on private islands while the people that create the wealth live in hovels and holiday in caravan parks. At the moment we allow Bezos, Musk, Gates, Branson and their ilk to use humans as profit points, either as workers or customers. They manipulate politicians and the populace far too much.



Communism collapsed because it is a flawed system. As will capitalism. We can learn from China's strategy of merging the two forms into a single model, although we must avoid using dictatorship as the control mechanism. China modelled and developed its new socialist/capitalist path from Singapore, and so should we.



Our governments are failing because they have been diverted by splinter groups, minorities and social pressure groups. They have forgotten who drives the economy and pays the taxes. This has encouraged even more dissenters to bleat for "justice" and thus drive governments further into dead end alleys of ineffective social management.



Trying to govern whilst accommodating diametrically opposed social enclaves is a fool's errand. We have been forced to create an "inclusive" society in which the previously excluded now control government policy. This, in my view, was the tipping point.



We can be compassionate, caring, inclusive and supportive of all people...but only those who accept that generosity with good grace and respect, and share our community values. Those that don't may need to find other societies more fitting to their extremism.

[Frood]

No offense Brick, but you do a lot of pissing and moaning, but I don't see you offering any alternatives. I don't know what to either.

Fair comment, but in the distant past I have advocated what I believe might be worthwhile changes.



First and foremost, the idea of "representative" democracy must be dismantled. Democracy has been usurped by political parties who's DNA comes from political ideology. Politicians do not represent their constituents, but their preferred ideology.



Secondly, the notion that "one size fits all" is the basis for governing our society has to be abandoned. Humans are diverse in all manner or ways with different ideas on how they wish to be governed and the rules and conventions they live under. The idea that "democracy" provides a level playing for everyone is fatally flawed. Under western democratic processes it is entirely possible for a government to take power with less than 50% of the population voting for them. In fact, governments can be formed with only 20% of the popular vote. Any election leads to a large proportion of the community "losing". Losing should not be a basis of governance.



Thirdly, all ministers, judges, senior bureacrats and others with lawful authority over society must be appointed by a tribunal appointment in much the same was as juries. Those same tribunals will have the power to remove any person of authority if their conduct is contrary to good government.



Finally, Capitalism is a major problem, but communism is not the solution. We need a new economic social model that ensures wealth is dispersed fairly, entreprenuerism is rewarded but within reasonable bounds, ambition is encouraged and poverty is eliminated. That may sound somewhat Marxist, but I do not advocate for centralised economic planning which is the cornerstone of socialism. Innovation and invention must be left to private individuals who must be rewarded appropriately. I am no Marxist, but some Marxist principles are worthy of consideration.



There you go. I've suggested alternatives. Discuss and debate.

It's been said on this forum before that we no longer have a true free enterprise model..



It's kind of like China where companies are extensions of the government..



That is certainly true of big tech.

We don't have a free market anymore. What we have now is what nazi Germany-monopolized crony capitlism. The government picks and chooses winners and losers. The winners get taxpayer subsidies. The losers get onerous regulations or a big fat no.

Exactly.



People have been conditioned to erroneously conflate capitalism with the free market when there is no sound money and heavy regulation slanted in favour of large multinational companies and their overlords.



A free market wouldn't seek to shut down a lemonade stand because "safety" so that Coca Cola can flog frozen concentrate and shelf stable chemical brews at very favourable corporate tax rates while forcing citrus farmers to sell their crops for pennies on the dollar.... as government programs seek to both subsidise certain farming operations and shut down others with tax payer funds.



There's too much regulation and manipulation on the middle and lesser players.

[Anonymous]

Climate insanity in the West is dooming us.

https://twitter.com/AlexEpstein/status/1460281450633121795?cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email">https://twitter.com/AlexEpstein/status/ ... fsrc=email">https://twitter.com/AlexEpstein/status/1460281450633121795?cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email

[Bricktop]

Amen.



Our arrogant, racist, tone deaf politicians utterly fail to see the criminal hypocrisy in their actions versus their words.



"We got rich through fuelling our wealth with fossil fuels, but you can't so here's some money from my taxpaying morons. Fuck off. My private jet is waiting to take me home to my 3 story mansion with pool and air-conditioning, 8 cylinder Mercedes and a flat panel TV in every room. I can't be late getting home because I have to tell my citizens they must ride bicycles and use fans to keep cool as a result of this wonderful gabfest in Glasgow where they had dinosaurs and everything!!!"



Assholes.

[Anonymous]

No offense Brick, but you do a lot of pissing and moaning, but I don't see you offering any alternatives. I don't know what to either.

Fair comment, but in the distant past I have advocated what I believe might be worthwhile changes.



First and foremost, the idea of "representative" democracy must be dismantled. Democracy has been usurped by political parties who's DNA comes from political ideology. Politicians do not represent their constituents, but their preferred ideology.



Secondly, the notion that "one size fits all" is the basis for governing our society has to be abandoned. Humans are diverse in all manner or ways with different ideas on how they wish to be governed and the rules and conventions they live under. The idea that "democracy" provides a level playing for everyone is fatally flawed. Under western democratic processes it is entirely possible for a government to take power with less than 50% of the population voting for them. In fact, governments can be formed with only 20% of the popular vote. Any election leads to a large proportion of the community "losing". Losing should not be a basis of governance.



Thirdly, all ministers, judges, senior bureacrats and others with lawful authority over society must be appointed by a tribunal appointment in much the same was as juries. Those same tribunals will have the power to remove any person of authority if their conduct is contrary to good government.



Finally, Capitalism is a major problem, but communism is not the solution. We need a new economic social model that ensures wealth is dispersed fairly, entreprenuerism is rewarded but within reasonable bounds, ambition is encouraged and poverty is eliminated. That may sound somewhat Marxist, but I do not advocate for centralised economic planning which is the cornerstone of socialism. Innovation and invention must be left to private individuals who must be rewarded appropriately. I am no Marxist, but some Marxist principles are worthy of consideration.



There you go. I've suggested alternatives. Discuss and debate.

It's been said on this forum before that we no longer have a true free enterprise model..



It's kind of like China where companies are extensions of the government..



That is certainly true of big tech.

We don't have a free market anymore. What we have now is what nazi Germany-monopolized crony capitlism. The government picks and chooses winners and losers. The winners get taxpayer subsidies. The losers get onerous regulations or a big fat no.

I read that something like eighty percent of corporate welfare in Canada is goes to companies to fight climate change. I am getting tired of this wealth transfer from working people to corporations and billionaires.

[Bricktop]

Climate change is good for SOME businesses.



This video encapsulates most of why I consider modern democracy to be utterly broken and corrupt. Although many issues raised are specifically related to the US, the general principles and failings certainly apply to Australian and British governments. While the speaker focusses the corruption of American politics purely on how campaigns are funded, Australian politics are equally corrupt through more subtle interactions between interest groups, donors and governments. The end result is identical, in my view.



Political funding must be either heavily regulated or outlawed altogether. If we are to have funding, it can only be directed to a holding fund that distributes to candidates equally across the board. This, in itself, will probably cease the notion of funding altogether anyway.



Although the speaker doesn't address the issue of political parties, they are in my view the core of the corruption. The politicians themselves play to a system created and supported by major parties. A system that ensures that either one of 2 parties will govern, and smaller parties are merely short lived irritants. This is the exact opposite of "democracy".

[Anonymous]

Climate change is good for SOME businesses.



This video encapsulates most of why I consider modern democracy to be utterly broken and corrupt. Although many issues raised are specifically related to the US, the general principles and failings certainly apply to Australian and British governments. While the speaker focusses the corruption of American politics purely on how campaigns are funded, Australian politics are equally corrupt through more subtle interactions between interest groups, donors and governments. The end result is identical, in my view.



Political funding must be either heavily regulated or outlawed altogether. If we are to have funding, it can only be directed to a holding fund that distributes to candidates equally across the board. This, in itself, will probably cease the notion of funding altogether anyway.



Although the speaker doesn't address the issue of political parties, they are in my view the core of the corruption. The politicians themselves play to a system created and supported by major parties. A system that ensures that either one of 2 parties will govern, and smaller parties are merely short lived irritants. This is the exact opposite of "democracy".

[Bricktop]

Yeah, I know...first 10 minutes are the most relevant.



I wish I could edit these things.

[Anonymous]

The COVID-19 pandemic has been terrible for small businesses..



Lockdowns, reduced capactity in businesses, extra expense of hand sanitizer, and plastic barriers.