|
|
Post by Cow-winkle on Jul 13, 2011 12:33:02 GMT -5
I suppose by that I just mean their consensus in the Constitution - or to be completely correct, my interpretation. (Ironically, I don't think Thomas Paine was a fan, though I could be wrong.) It's probably possible to argue about how far "promote the general welfare" extends all day long, but I happen to be a fan of the 10th Amendment. I also would disagree that FDR's reforms helped the Depression at all, but obviously nobody can ever prove it one way or the other! My point wasn't that the New Deal was effective--that's a question of economics, and beyond the scope of this discussion. My point is that it wouldn't have been right for him to say "Hey, not my problem," and let the situation stay as it was or get worse, no matter what happened. It's one things to say "His reforms didn't work; he should have done X instead/done nothing at all, as that would have been more effective in improving the economy." I can imagine there being a coherent argument for that position. It's another thing to say "It was positively immoral for him to have anything at all; he should have let the unemployment and hunger continue, no matter how bad things got." |
|
|
|
Post by Joker on Jul 14, 2011 10:44:41 GMT -5
My point wasn't that the New Deal was effective--that's a question of economics, and beyond the scope of this discussion. My point is that it wouldn't have been right for him to say "Hey, not my problem," and let the situation stay as it was or get worse, no matter what happened. It's one things to say "His reforms didn't work; he should have done X instead/done nothing at all, as that would have been more effective in improving the economy." I can imagine there being a coherent argument for that position. It's another thing to say "It was positively immoral for him to have anything at all; he should have let the unemployment and hunger continue, no matter how bad things got." Eh, well, I suppose you either think he had the authority to do it or you don't. I wouldn't have thought of bringing "moral" or "immoral" into the question myself. But anyway, I don't want to hijack this thread with my personal opinions about the New Deal, so I will merely defer to the fact that nobody ever convinces anybody in rational argument. xD |
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jul 15, 2011 9:38:40 GMT -5
For a possible real-life example of a benevolent dictator, you could look towards Singapore. If you walk down a road there, you'll find the public transport system is amazing, people are well dressed, you can feel safe walking around at night, and the place has a world-renowned zoo and bird-park. It's a very pleasant place to live, and I stayed there about five years or so. Unfortunately, no government is without its faults, and I'm sure there are issues people have with the Singapore government being a bit heavy-handed at times. (Chewing gum is a banned substance, unless you have a doctor's proscription. But then, is chewing gum really a necessity? The streets are so clean without squished bits of gum sticking to them...) The bad thing about a dictatorship is that the people have no real way to feel that their voice has been heard, without resorting to angry demostrations. Even when people are pampered (or especially when they're pampered?), they don't want to feel like their opinion doesn't count. A working voting system gives people a chance to vent their opinions on the government in a more productive, peaceful way. I agree with what Sarn said about the governments being there to serve the people, and not the other way around. It may cost the population to be funding some silly expenditures that government workers take out (and I wish they'd do less of that), but sometimes you lose a little bit to gain something more valuable. Stability, order, a good standard of living for all, upholding those universal human rights. That's what a good government should acheive, or try to. And when problems arise, as they inevitably do, there ought to be some way for the people or anyone aware of the problem to prod the leaders into the right direction again. I should probably interject, since, well, I live here and all. XD Singapore's a democracy, not a dictatorship, complete with a Cabinet-esque (called the Parliament here). The British colonised it at first, and I doubt they'd have left it in the hands of a dictator. There are, to be honest, very few political issues (there will always be some in any governement, especially during election times), but the culture's rather... conserative. And competitive. For instance, I doubt gay marriage would be legalised here for decades. It's not because people are intolerant, but because it's really mired in tradition, and when you have such a rich conglomerate of cultures and religions in a small area, what would be minorities in the States becomes a very focal percentage of the people's voices. It means everyone's opinion will probably be heard, which would both be a good and a bad thing. As for the chewing gum thing... that was in response to people sticking it in train doors, not spitting them onto floors.  Ah. I apologize for saying this all too quickly without checking my own accuracy. Normally I'm not very attentive of the nuances of politics, and since I was rather young when I was living in Singapore for those five years, my main source of information about Singaporean politics are my parents. And they do have a bias. But, with that in mind, the way that my parents see it is that the ruling party in Singapore can't really be voted out. The People's Action Party has been continuously in power since 1959, starting with the first Prime Minister. And they've won every election since then, generally with large margins of support. It's not that it's a bad idea to vote for them, but for a very long time they have not had a viable opposition party. That makes the PAP the best choice and also the only choice, for four decades. Now I don't know if the political climate has changed since we left Singapore in 2000, but if they are still the only real party in Singapore, then what might be a democracy in theory would in practice be viewed as a single-party dictatorship. Again, though, I can see that my sources of information may not be the most objective ones. (But, when I did a uni subject last year entitled "Understanding Asia" Singapore's political status as an effective dictatorship was raised too. Not that this helps me much.) Um, if I sounded insensitive to the current Singaporean political system it would mostly be because I learned about it indirectly. |
|
