Democide and Maximizing Government for Freedom

[delicti]

Obviously, since the foundations of Socialism were laid into place, there has been intense debate on whether or not Socialism could be used to improve lives of the middle and lower classes. At this point, the resounding answer to whether Socialism implemented as Communism on any national scale will not. In fact it leads greater loss of freedom, and ultimately perilous conditions for anyone who would intellectually or otherwise oppose the government.

These perilous conditions, when they result in a loss of life, constitute Democide. Democide, which means "the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder," is a little-known term being pioneered by R.J. Rummel, a political scientist at the University of Hawaii. His research has been accepted by Human Rights Coalition, a liberal Australian non-profit organization.

In his research, R.J. Rummel studies different political structures and their histories of Democide, and tries to make statistical interpretations of this data. Rummel shows that Democracy is the current optimal system for a government with the least likelihood to murder its population, or the population of other countries.

But is he wrong? Certainly we've seen a violent upswing from the world's largest Democracy; is it just a current trend, or do you think that Democracies will ultimately collapse? Can socialism be implemented in a way that doesn't result in large scale governmental murder? Can socialism and capitalism be joined in a way that further prevents Democide, and improves the life of the lower classes, as Marx initially envisioned?

When we discuss government and structure, we should always be mindful of what the overall effect of a governmental structure will be on the well being of populations everywhere; Democide is one of the better ways of measuring this.

So, what does everybody think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/
http://www.democide.info/index.html

[KontanKarite]

I've been trying to hash out how we can still have socialism, democracy, and capitalism all in the same boat for a while now. I can't quite wrap my head around it, but I'd love to see something like it attempted.

I think we should figure out what it is a person NEEDS and make it more easily obtainable. Everyone NEEDS medical care, for example. So, how can we make it pretty much free and at the same time keep it at a high quality standard?

People need food/nutrition for example.

would it not be possible to make all things people need a socialist type thing, but if someone wants something more, say... a corvette over a pinto, they should be able to work towards it.

Of course, that's not like medical coverage. I don't believe we should have levels of care for different people who can afford it. Maybe cosmetic surgury would be more of a want than a need, but things such as keeping you alive so that you can function in society should probably be more easier to obtain.

I have a friend who lost her job because she got terribly sick for 3 days. I find it odd that we get punished for things that are out of our control. It's not like she CHOSE to get sick.

[Mirazatha]

Kontan, what you get is basically canada in a nutshell. The reason you cant figure it out is because we cant either, and we have the system in place. you get a gradual upswing in quality, but at the same time everyone, and i do mean everyone, is complaining about how bad the state of everything is, and how much better they would be at fixing things.

The medical care one is really, REALLY hard to do, just because it costs so much. The cars and everything we've got some weird half-system in effect. i think if your on EI here than you get free bus rides, or at least the children do. (After working as a lifeguard, i found out that a chunk of our regular patrons were children whos parents were on ei and got free cab rides from where they lived down to the pool, and a free swim once a week)

Theres also the chance that we go to far the other way and in fact i think we have, if you want to fire someone for missing work you have to have a paper trail going back for at least six months, and you have to go through 4 or 5 different layers of arbitration/conflict mediation/trials inside a seperate like 4 month period or something. and each case of that costs something like 50-60k.

Personally, on the topic of will democracies collapse or not, i think they will. A democracy is only as strong as its people let it be, and the average person is letting the media do far too much thinking for them. People arent even considering what the issues are anymore, much less making their own decisions on them. I think that the violent upswing weve been seeing is just one of the signs of an approaching collapse, as the government trys to keep the country alive by giving people something to focus on and get excited about.

PS: Kontan, im sorry to hear about your friend, that seems really unfair. Here, as long as you get a doctors note we tend to let that slide. The only time its ever a problem is if you do it every, say week or so. and then we dont really punish the person, we just make them go to the hospital for a bunch of tests. Although, considering the wait times at the hospital these days, that is kind of a punishment of sorts.

PPS: Wow, i actually stopped just ghosting the site every day and posted again. horray for me!

[CptSternn]

The system you are referring to is already in place in most first world nations.

Whenever Americans want to debate the pros and cons of socialism, they use 1980's Russia or Cuba. They forget that Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France, Spain, UK, Ireland, and most of the EU already have socialist republics in place and are working brilliantly.

Also, as was pointed out in Sicko, America already has socialised emergency services, a fire department, police services, libraries, and more. These things are socialised services for the masses. One then must wonder if people have faith in these services, why not take it to the next level and socialise all medicine? Does anyone feel their local fire dept or police dept are a bunch of commies since they are socialised? Anyone feel they give precedent to the rich?

Also, democracy is not the competing force against socialist - capitalism is the problem here. Socialism is the middle ground between communism and capitalism. Socialism works because it allows a certain amount of capitalism, but yet still keeps it in check by helping those in need who can't afford it.

Remember, the successful conclusion of capitalism is when the world's second richest man dies of starvation.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

The system you are referring to is already in place in most first world nations.

Including ours; that's not a point of contention.

Whenever Americans want to debate the pros and cons of socialism, they use 1980's Russia or Cuba. They forget that Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France, Spain, UK, Ireland, and most of the EU already have socialist republics in place and are working brilliantly.

Or Communist China, which has killed about 73 million people via the standards set in place by Democide. I'm not saying that Socialism can't work, just that in the last century Socialist or quasi-socialist(as in Communism) governments have been by far the most murderous. It's an interesting thing to think about, because it's a view of Socialism that is both factual, and devoid of economic theory, which is what the debate is often dominated by.

One then must wonder if people have faith in these services, why not take it to the next level and socialise all medicine? Does anyone feel their local fire dept or police dept are a bunch of commies since they are socialised? Anyone feel they give precedent to the rich?

I don't know if faith is the word. Social services are notorious for running over budget while under-performing in this country. Tolerate due to lack of a better system is more like it.

And yes, there's plenty that give precedent to the rich. When I lived in Southeastern Massachusetts, I know of at least one artificial "village" that had a fire department (that was tax payer supported) specifically for itself, and turned back other fire departments, or would not respond to emergencies from outside communities. So yes, socialism can be very easily twisted to give preference to the rich, even in current first world countries.

Also, democracy is not the competing force against socialist - capitalism is the problem here. Socialism is the middle ground between communism and capitalism.

I think you better brush up on your definitions:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism

Socialism is an economic structure, and communism is the most obvious (as well as originally intended) implementation of it.

Capitalism is an economic structure, and a free-market economy is the most obvious implementation of it (Adam Smith left no intended social structure for implimentation).

Socialized programs are actually a fall back to feudalism:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=feudalism
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Feudalism

They are socialist in name only, really.

Socialism works because it allows a certain amount of capitalism, but yet still keeps it in check by helping those in need who can't afford it.

Again, Socialism, by definition, is not Capitalism. And I fail to see how that is an adequate check or balance to a government. It does nothing to prevent the abuses by the rich; it just prevents those abuses from killing the poor en mass.

I'm not opposed to preventing murder via neglect, but I think that there is real usefulness in dialog about how either system could be improved.

Remember, the successful conclusion of capitalism is when the world's second richest man dies of starvation.

Not quite sure what you're talking about, but if you want to use slippery slope logic, then the successful conclusion of socialism is the murder of 250+ million people in the last century alone. Doesn't sound too bad in comparison, even if we're both grasping at straws to make an analogy.