Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et

And democracy is a soft form of communism.
---
How do you mean, in what way?

---
For example, in the level of taxation. On pre 20th century monarchy, taxes did not rise above 5%. Due to the inception of democracy all over Europe, taxes rose continually, until the 30/40/50% now?

@all

I don't see why a lot of you think that human nature is an important factor in determining the qualities of ideologies. Human nature's effect on ideologies is generally much less important than ideologies' influence on human nature. The history has well shown what communism's influence on human nature in a society is and this alone has defined it as a bad ideology. There is not a single example where communism worked well and sustainably. We definately cannot say the same about capitalistic democracy as we have enough of good examples where it leads to general wellbeing, usually when it is combined with a generally honest mentality (Scandinavia, Switzerland, Canada, Austria etc.).

We can even say that a monarchy can be a good system as we have examples in history where a good monarch can lead a society to fast progress and wellbeing (e.g. Athens during Pericles). Of course, the main problem is that although a monarchy is potentially the most effective system, it is also potentially the most destructive when a bad monarch appears. Also, the distribution of power is unfair in its core principle while in capitalistic democracy it happens as an abuse of the core principle.

48% in Belgium.

Okay, but are the taxes a result of democracy? Or are the taxes the result of the policy that was made during the century, the policy of for instance health care. In real pure communism, there are no taxes, as you get everything from the state. That's why it's strange to say democracy is a soft form of communism.

I reject any kind of monarchy. Nobody should have power because of his ancestry. That goes in against all principles of democracy. Monarchy and democracy are incompatible. It is one or the other. Even if the monarch hasn't got a lot of power, every power he has is too much.

It's all very simple in my opinion:
Anarchy => because monopolies are bad
Capitalism => because free trade is good and autarky is economically deficient


A friend of mine has the same ideas, and I talked a lot with him about how to prevent monopolies from occurring. In my view the best solution found to this, thus far, is a government. In some instance a monopoly should be allowed (in case of patents, so that R&D investments can be earned back), and in other cases it is unwanted.

Yes they are result of democracy. Look, why do you think universal health care was 'created' so to speak? It was because of democracy: the 'have-nots' vote in order to get the property of the 'have's'. Do you think universal health care is possible under monarchy? Do you think that a monarch would force everyone gigantic amounts of money to keep up universal health care? That wouldn't be good for the value of his property, and thus, monarch's have kept a very financially conservative policy.

If you are interested, please read this small article. http://mises.org/resources.aspx?Id=cdb4f473-c7f9-4a4c-9d49-d3d7108c3dab.

I'm searching for the quote on tax rates, democracy & monarchy. I'll post it when I found it.

Hmmm, if you say that the only instance where monopolies should be implemented by the gov't is because of the protection of intellectual property, then you're not very far from being a anarcho-capitalist?

However, even in the case of patents & copyright, etc, a gov't is unwanted. Again, I have an article if you like, although it's a bit lengthy:
http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

He'll explain it better than I ever can of course. The conclusion was that it was both immoral and economically deficient. I have made some notes in the past, I'll try to find them and give them to you.

For example, in the level of taxation. On pre 20th century monarchy, taxes did not rise above 5%. Due to the inception of democracy all over Europe, taxes rose continually, until the 30/40/50% now?

LOL you can't be serius compare modern counties taxation with old monarchy! Same services level, no?
But moreover you can't be seriuos talking about taxation as something of "communism" , til is a tipical sign of capitalism!!!

Personally, I like something like "caste system". System where is "democracy" but just people in caste can vote. If you find relatively "good" formula for principle who can get among/in caste, then you can have something much better than democracy. (sheep will not able vote, that is all :-) ) Set up such a criteria is the most problematic area...you can not say that education, economics skill or salary will be the criterias, there a lot of very simple people who are suitable to rule the country, but if you find some mix of criterias you can make something like "caste system". Maybe something like that just people above 30y. can be in caste and their history, past opinions or progress , skills or education or other positive or negative aspect of their life is calculated.

I hope you can understand me.
I hope I can be in caste :-DD

It is not necessarily the only instance. Efforts in the past to create one education system for a country (basically establishing a state monopoly) have in my opinion been good decisions as they gigantically sped up processes of standardization, which is in my opinion good (as it reduces the transaction costs, less research after education is needed when hiring somebody, thereby making the market function more efficiently).

(Of course, one could argue, that after establishing a standard, it could be privatized again.)

Do you think these service would have the same cost in a pure market system, i.e., under competition? Would they cost 50% of your income? I don't really think so. To be sure, the gov't makes some nice roads and hospitals, but these service would be provided much more cheaply under market anarchy, proving that monarchies are better.

Taxation is a sign of communism: under pure communism, taxes are 100%, under pure capitalism 0%. The more taxes, the more communism.

Problem is that what the people who are in the 'voting caste' don't necessarily vote what is best for the 'non-voting caste'. Than you have people living who have to follow certain laws, but who don't have any way of changing the laws. So I'm going to say 'no'. I used to be in favor of some 'political test' to see if you were smart enough to vote, but I reject that idea now. Every person should initially (so I'm excluding the people who have done certain crimes which made them lose their (political) rights) have a possibility of changing the laws of his country.

Taxation is a sign of communism: under pure communism, taxes are 100%, under pure capitalism 0%. The more taxes, the more communism.

Depends on your definition of taxation. If taxation = (gross income - net (expandable) income) / (gross income), than under pure communism, taxes are 0%.

And who cares, the ideological era is over :P

The ideological era will never be over. What do you think is politics all about (apart from opportunism :p)?

voters would be same as are in democracy, so with various opinions, but system exclude sheeps and people who really know nothing about system, economy, or have bad social/human opinions.
Try to imagine how can your election looks if you exclude some social parasits, alcoholics, or just dumb people. There still will be democracy, but just in the circle of people you have some idea about system and are not abusing system or dont have some special own negative purposes.