A better question is, should the government have more control over the population. Stop having kids.

Seriously though, Cam would call me a liberal. I believe in personal liberty, but controlled national interests, ie. infrastructure, regulation of business and finance, law, healthcare, etc. The problem for me is that this system of representation almost entirely fails to represent the people. It's a comfort blanket for people. Mmm, democracy, so warm and lovely, we don't have to worry anymore.

It's the same way in America but in a slightly more retarded way. There you have gibbering morons like Glenn Beck whipping people into a frenzy because there's a Democrat in the White House. And people phone in and they're like "I can't trust the government anymore." It's as if when there's a Republican in government they just sit back and automatically support anything that they do, but when a Democrat proposes any kind of change whatsoever, suddenly their personal freedoms are under attack. It's as if they've forgotten about the PATRIOT Act. Or maybe it's okay to give up freedom to prevent terrorism, but not okay to give up freedom to give healthcare to sick and dying people who can't afford insurance.

In the US, politicians receive a colossal amount of commercial support and that's not even regarded as an issue. They've just accepted that their ridiculously expensive system requires funding. At least in the UK, people are forced to resign for that kind of thing. In the wake of the expenses bullshit, we're finally holding politicians to account, so that's a positive change at least.

Call me a cynic, but I think democracy, or at least this version of it has failed. Controversially, I'd prefer to see a democracy with less equality. I would rather informed votes counted. I think one way to help it would be to set a voter registration test, covering basic history, geography, politics, ethics etc. It would be mandatory to take at the end of high school, and then if you pass you become a voter. If you fail, you are ineligible to vote. You can take the test at any time after that. It's not even a matter of weeding out dumb people, because it wouldn't be an exam or anything. It would just be simple questions such as selecting the current prime minister, government party, the current opposition, other national parties, the minimum age for voting, the countries of the United Kingdom, countries that are part of the EU, etc. Then, if you have the vote, and you do not vote at an election without previously declaring your absence, then your voting status is revoked.

I'm saying that voting should be a privilege, not to be taken for granted. Everyone has a right to have a say, but some people are worth listening to more than others.

The older I get the more I become convinced that the general populace are far too short-sighted to actually know what's best for them. I would be an anarchist in a perfect world but this isn't a perfect world, it's a fucking stupid one.

LOL! If people wanted peace and equality then why do political parties like the Republicans keep on winning elections?

Because the elections are rigged, thats kind of what I was pointing out when I was talking about the senate. The whole thing is rigged and set up for a certain group of people and not for the others.

The system spread in the western world has clearly failed, I think the average folk isnt smart enough to choose who should govern him, yet he should have enough freedom to do what's better for him without interfering with other people's freedom.

I don't understand how this system has clearly failed. I live in the US and am doing quite well off thank you. I couldn't be this well off in a more socialist system. There are people who are even more well off than me, and they certainly need this system to be that well off. True, some people are made worse off by this system, but that doesn't mean it failed. I don't believe that government should provide for everyone equally (in fact except for defense, infrastructure, education, and natural monopoly industry I don't think it should provide anything at all) so this system has not failed in my eyes.

The system has only "clearly failed" if you judge it to have failed. There are several people who believe it is quite successful.

Well, it's a matter of perspectives, I'm in the richest 25 percent of my country and I wouldn't be considered as upper class in the US, sure there's more issues in my country besides the wrong government system, but if you ask me many things will go better if elections were limited to a small bunch of people or if they were actually representative, last election all 3 candidates had the same position in most topics (anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc., religion played a huge role last elections), and that didnt bothered people, most of the campaign was based on showing phrases of candidates out of context, and pointing fingers at them, in fact the current state of Mexico reminds me to a post-democracy. And when it comes to US it's even more stupid, you go vote on the first round for your party, then they select a delegate that can change his mind anytime, then you send those delegates to a convention where they'll have an amazing time, even when the election is already decided. And on the actual elections, it all comes down to one or two states, rendering 48 states useless.

I also think there's an issue with proposed referendums and shaping policies based on public opinion. Some polls claim Britain wants the death penalty back. So if that's a vote "Capital punishment, yes or no?" in amongst a bunch of other referendums, and people don't bother to vote, because they're working, because X Factor is on, whatever, only the people motivated for the change will go out and vote.

Some issues are bigger than yes or no, and actually quite a lot of the time public opinion is just wrong.

Never forget the golden rule: A person are smart, people is idiots.

This isn't an arbitrarily drawn line. There is a reason for why I include education and not healthcare, and so on. Understand all of this is assuming a government that does place the interests of the people high on the priority list. I include defense because government controlled defense should in a perfect society act as a defender of the people. A privatized defense system would make those defenders loyal to the dollar not the country. Education is important to hopefully guarantee that everyone has enough basic knowledge to make informed votes. It is an essential part of a working democratic society. Infrastructure and natural monopoly resources need the government because the industries are not very profitable and therefore many firms choose not to provide those resources, or if they do they must be subsidized to provide at a socially optimal quantity.

Health care should be privatized because government interference in a market causes more distortions and loss than if they let the market function on its on. Let's assume that there is a government insurance package that will cover minor surgeries. The government will then set a price on that surgery, most likely lower than the price dictated by the market, and then pay only that price to the doctor/hospital/etc. To make up for the lost revenue from the government distorting the market the hospital will began charging more for the same procedure to anyone not on the government insurance plan. It is completely unfair to force the people that are using private insurance or pay their own health care bills to also bear the burden of those on a government run plan.



It isn't that I don't care about them, it is about unequals being treated like unequals. Many people posting on this thread (yourself included) have argued that part of the problem is that people who are, for lack of a better way of saying it, not smart enough to vote shouldn't be allowed to vote. Right there you are acknowledging that people are not all equal. If I am smarter or have a unique or extremely valuable skill then I should not receive the same wage as a manual laborer.

The usual counter-argument is to bring up someone who was born into money as an example of someone who has done nothing yet has so much. At some point however, someone had to earn that wealth, and the government has no right to tell you what to do with your wealth. If I want to pass it down to my kid so he never has to work that is my choice.

I do not understand this argument at all. Under a government run system, the government is not out to make profit, therefore it can give MORE to the hospital than the private company would. Especially if it means more people have healthcare and are thus having procedures done that they could not otherwise afford. That seems like an increased number of patients therefore an increased profit. You're looking at from the point of view of it already being a market, and therefore trying to not upset that market - which is exactly the reason I dislike capitalism. Why should the market stay the same? The reason for healthcare reform is that the market has been deemed broken. People are denied healthcare because they are sick. Apparently that's okay for some folks because they already have insurance, so now they can cover their ears and close their eyes and not speak out because of some childish fear that their insurance might be taken away from them. Don't want to piss off the people who might save your life one day.

The government wouldn't be trying to compete with private companies, but would instead be providing basic healthcare to those who do not have health insurance. It wouldn't exist to undercut companies for reasons of profit, but for reasons of affordability, and they'd actually be able to regulate prices so that there is no loss of revenue for the hospital - UNLIKE one insurer undercutting another insurer. Seems to me that for the consumer, private companies would improve their coverage in order to provide a more comprehensive service and so they would still have a place. We have the NHS here, but we also have private healthcare like BUPA. Sure, millions of people will leave their insurance plans in favour of a government option if it turns out to be preferable, but so what? What's so fantastic about health insurance companies?

In fact, this whole thing seems to hinge on this anti-tax mindset that somehow giving more money to private companies for something is preferable to giving less money directly to the government. What's the difference? The government is in a position to provide basic services without seeking profit, would provide as many, if not more jobs, and would eliminate the burden on many people who can't get insurance because of pre-existing conditions. But instead, gotta protect "the market".