Voting is open
Thaaat's more than a little bit dishonest on your part. Because this vote literally isn't about concrete policy proposals. We were specifically told that this vote was about the higher level positions on things.

That's my point, you claim not to be voting based on ideology, but this vote is not on economic system rather than a specific policy. You're voting for workplace democracy based on ideology, not based on something you know will work. Just something you want to believe will work despite having no convincing evidence will work and, in fact, historical evidence it will not work. Despite having the option (aka social democratic policies) to just help people from within a system we know does actually work and has been proven to work outside of leftists' hypothetical scenarios.
 
Consider it future proofing then. > : V

It's far better than them getting bought out, or bullied around by a Japanese or Russian agribusiness. These policies will work for them as well.
Entirely fair.

To be honest, I'm of a bent for a hybridization system, but there's not really an option for that. :p
 
[X][IDEALS] Social Democrat: Centered around the idea that it is the state's responsibility to ensure a bare-minimum standard of living, the Social Democrats add to the New Capitalist agenda with a push for a government guarantee of adequate housing, food, and water to all citizens -- itself a fairly titanic task. It remains rooted in the fundamental ideal of private enterprise. The Social Democrats have some interest in the potential of democratized workplaces and are willing to support them in an experimental measure.
[X][CRUSH] None. This is a democracy. If your ideology cannot make its case to the people in practice, it deserves to fail.
 
Entirely fair.

To be honest, I'm of a bent for a hybridization system, but there's not really an option for that. :p

I suspect we're going to get that, one way or another, just by virtue of the two largest blocks being socialists and soc-dems, with a sizable communist minority in third place.
Adhoc vote count started by Rat King on Mar 15, 2019 at 11:04 PM, finished with 491 posts and 106 votes.
 
Actual studies from prominent academics who study businesses and coops have been posted showing that you are wrong.

A handful of studies are far from being the economic consensus. I work in healthcare, we do not change our guidelines based on a handful of studies which can be biased, based on small sample sizes or flawed study methodology, etc. You need an overwhelming majority of good, reproducible evidence using thorough methodology in order to justify making a change. The first principle is to do no harm.
 
A handful of studies are far from being the economic consensus. I work in healthcare, we do not change our guidelines based on a handful of studies which can be biased, based on small sample sizes or flawed study methodology, etc. You need an overwhelming majority of good, reproducible evidence using thorough methodology in order to justify making a change. The first principle is to do no harm.
I recommend finding a study *a good one i mean* that claims an opposing opinion to the one he brought if you want to challenge him on it :p.
 
Let not be so Sectarian, our movement should be a Popular font against injustices or else it will fall into hand of those willing be our depots
 
But they show that their roughly the same, as per your own words, even if some are better (though not significantly) Then there is no reason to encourage one over the other, and allow them to play evenly.

Aside from morality? This argument could be used to argue that some states should be monarchies and others, if they feel like it, democratic (With the option of the president declaring himself king and marrying into another royal family). There's also my belief that allowing private corporations to operate unhindered will end with us having foreign companies washing out both local co-ops and local companies. They simply have more resources and can flood us out before we get our feet under us. You're putting too much faith in European, Japanese, Russian, South American, and Chinese companies at the moment. They will exploit us, and the mechanism of resistance will be too weak to stop them without immense effort.

-

That's my point, you claim not to be voting based on ideology, but this vote is not on economic system rather than a specific policy.

Nooooooo......? I said I'm not operating on rigid ideology, that I have give and negotiation. Everyone has an ideological position that they adhere to, I'm specifically saying that I'm not going to allow rigid ideology to prevent me from co-operating or caring about other people.

And you've specifically denied attempts to engage you on the issue of weather the program proposed could work or not. You do as well. It's a simple fact of life. And your lean causes you to not looking at the evidence put before you. Instead you've decided to attack me and ignore what I'm saying in the process.

I reiterate my claim that you're not engaging in good faith.

-

Entirely fair.

To be honest, I'm of a bent for a hybridization system, but there's not really an option for that. :p

Vote SocDem/Socialist I guess? It would get that message across.
 
Last edited:
You're voting for workplace democracy based on ideology, not based on something you know will work. Just something you want to believe will work despite having no convincing evidence will work and, in fact, historical evidence it will not work

There's plenty of historical evidence it works.

But they show that their roughly the same, as per your own words, even if some are better (though not significantly) Then there is no reason to encourage one over the other, and allow them to play evenly.

There's also that whole, produces better outcomes for workers thing...
 
Aside from morality?
Morality is irrelevant here, There is still protections even in the New Capitalist vote, nevermind that SD or Socialist is guaranteed to win.
How will they even flood us?
The same reason that makes it impossible to trade easily also applies to Foreign take overs. If we were Miami you'd have a point, but even Capitalist systems can be EXTREMELY anti-trade and protectionist, see THE USA.
There's also that whole, produces better outcomes for workers thing...
SD allows that not to matter, while still keeping the playing ground equal.
 
Last edited:
Well, at this point we seem to have a close/even split anyways? I dunno, for me SocDem felt like the nicely-balanced hybrid option. There does feel to be a bit of a fuzzy gray line there.

The Soc half of SocDem/Soc gives greater protection from outside forces that almost certainly don't care about the locals. If you believe in the hybrid, vote for the hybrid option.

And if there is no outside investment under a capitalist system, we're going to starve for resources. It's an attempt at a middle way that very well may fail on either side because the surplus doesn't exist to allow the robust welfare state that SocDem states talk about, and it doesn't provide the lower level protections and democracy that comes from Socialism. There is a very real risk of neither money, nor freedom for workers.
 
Last edited:
This scenario is such a extreme, unlikely case that I highly doubt it is every going to happen in any amount outside of individual edge cases. It is highly unlikely that were will be wide spread groups of nefarious conmen running around the countryside, looking for farmers to beguile out of their land. This is not a case even worth discussing and I can only see it being a valuable example if the person using it wishes to trap their opponent with a rhetorical 'gotcha' tactic.

Unfortunate failures of your favored ideology will happen because that's human nature and while you may believe it is too rare to worry about, the political opposition will use embarrassing anecdotes to bash your case in the newspaper all the time. I would not be surprised if events like this occasionally pop up in the quest.

New American Conservative
One of the region's most powerful coops has just imploded spectacularly after a group of conmen had wormed their way to trusted leadership positions in the farmer coop and convinced the workers to vote to fire the original founders and many of the original workers. This group escaped with a majority of the coop's assets. Authorities have been only able to recover part of the funds. The coop's founders have been ruined. Clearly, this is proof that...

Chicago Worker's Daily
The head of the region's most powerful farm businesses has been accused of not so shocking abuses of his employees. Employees accused the director of refusing to pay his workers fairly while using cunning accounting measures in an attempt to hide his misdeeds from his employees and the government. Further investigations have revealed the business's equipment and grain storage have not been meeting government safety regulations . Clearly, this is proof that...
 
Last edited:
The Soc half of SocDem/Soc gives greater protection from outside forces that almost certainly don't care about the locals. If you believe in the hybrid, vote for the hybrid option.

And if there is no outside investment under a capitalist system, we're going to starve for resources. It's an attempt at a middle way that will fail on either side because the surplus doesn't exist to allow the robust welfare state that SocDem states talk about, and it doesn't provide the lower level protections and democracy that comes from Socialism. There is a very real risk of neither money, nor freedom for workers.
Freedom from what anyways? You guys talk as if having to merely work in a corporation is the same as literal slavery, but that isn't anything close to reality.
It keeps the ground equal between the concepts. It doesn't exactly keep it equal between workers and capitalists.
Capitalists very well may not even exist yet, considering the apocalypse, but even if there were, the Capitalist wouldn't be equal to workers because he would be the one in charge, since he took the risk. Thats Fair, and with the extensive protections offered by SD there is no real chance of starvation from being fired, even in the New Capitalist which is basically the US's modern Capitalism but with bug fixes (which makes it EXTREMELY good already, considering how successful it was before the hand of God came down on the US and I mean Hand of God almost literally)
 
The Soc half of SocDem/Soc gives greater protection from outside forces that almost certainly don't care about the locals. If you believe in the hybrid, vote for the hybrid option.

And if there is no outside investment under a capitalist system, we're going to starve for resources. It's an attempt at a middle way that very well may fail on either side because the surplus doesn't exist to allow the robust welfare state that SocDem states talk about, and it doesn't provide the lower level protections and democracy that comes from Socialism. There is a very real risk of neither money, nor freedom for workers.
Hm. You know what, fair enough. Re-re-revising my vote, on the basis of intentionally striving for the goal of something of a merging and hybridization between the Social Democrat and Socialist positions, at least in flavor. One or the other sets of Pros/Cons will have the mechanical effect, but this is as much about principle, story, and flavor.

[X][IDEALS] Social Democrat: Centered around the idea that it is the state's responsibility to ensure a bare-minimum standard of living, the Social Democrats add to the New Capitalist agenda with a push for a government guarantee of adequate housing, food, and water to all citizens -- itself a fairly titanic task. It remains rooted in the fundamental ideal of private enterprise. The Social Democrats have some interest in the potential of democratized workplaces and are willing to support them in an experimental measure.
[X][IDEALS] Socialist: Having come to refer to a specific political movement rather than an entire branch of ideology, modern socialism is focused on giving the state the power to care for allcitizens, and claims that the modern Social Democrat platform does not go far enough in pursuit of this. It also calls for a massive investment into healthcare in order to revitalize the field and make sure that there are enough medical professionals to go around (long-term, they want free healthcare, but there needs to be enough of it first). They also grant unions extensive privileges over private employers. They are fervently in favor of democratized workplaces, and openly campaign in favor of granting them special concessions.
[X][CRUSH] None. This is a democracy. If your ideology cannot make its case to the people in practice, it deserves to fail.
[X][POWER] You are a centralized federal state along the lines of the later United States.
[X][TEXT] The Constitution serves as a broad guide for the structure of this document, and many legal concepts integral to it carry through, but it is rewritten from the ground up to serve its new situation rather than simply amending it until it fits.
[X][REVIEW] The new Constitution will serve just fine with a standardized system for proposing amendments.
 
New American Conservative
One of the region's most powerful coops has just imploded spectacularly after a group of conmen had wormed their way to trusted leadership positions in the farmer coop and convinced the workers to vote to fire the original founders and many of the original workers. This group escaped with a majority of the coop's assets. Authorities have been only able to recover part of the funds. The coop's founders been ruined. Clearly, this is proof that...

This is impossible, because the fired workers would be entitled to most of those assets
 
Freedom from what anyways? You guys talk as if having to merely work in a corporation is the same as literal slavery, but that isn't anything close to reality.

Control over the course of your life? The ability to do something other than work or starve?

Why do you like political Democracy? Why don't you allow yourself to live under a King or Dictator? You wouldn't be a slave, simply not be allowed to vote and to be at the whims of someone far more powerful than you. Someone who, by definition, in a capitalist system has to pay you less than the value of the work you did. And that's not coming back to you in form of welfare, it's just gone. Apparently to bribe college admissions agents > : V
 
Last edited:
The Soc half of SocDem/Soc gives greater protection from outside forces that almost certainly don't care about the locals. If you believe in the hybrid, vote for the hybrid option.

And if there is no outside investment under a capitalist system, we're going to starve for resources. It's an attempt at a middle way that very well may fail on either side because the surplus doesn't exist to allow the robust welfare state that SocDem states talk about, and it doesn't provide the lower level protections and democracy that comes from Socialism. There is a very real risk of neither money, nor freedom for workers.

If we want protection from the outside we need to grow our economy. That's not going to be happening very effectively under a socialist system. You can argue that the Soc Dem system will struggle to fund a welfare state, but that is a problem that can be grown out of given time. We can start with a relatively barebones welfare state and then expand it as the economy grows. That will not be an option otherwise. And I think this idea of Russia, China, and the other nations "taking advantage" of the U.S. economy is flawed. Generally speaking, the free flow of investment money between nations increases wealth. India is poor and local businesses there often do get outcompeted by multinational businesses - you can argue that India is getting taken advantage of if you look at everything from the leftist viewpoint...yet the economy grows at more than 7% per year because multinationals hire local employees too since it is more efficient to produce your products close by to the consumers if it is possible. The same occurs in America now with Japanese automakers having car factories in the U.S. hiring American workers. If you are concerned about foreign influence from the opposing countries' government, that is a foreign policy issue rather than an economic issue. But maintaining a closed off economy trying to protect the economy from outside influence is ultimately self-defeating because the walls hurt far more than the foreign countries ever could.
 
Control over the course of your life? The ability to do something other than work or starve?

Why do you like political Democracy? Why don't you allow yourself to live under a King or Dictator? You wouldn't be a slave, simply not be allowed to vote and to be at the whims of someone far more powerful than you. Someone who, by definition, in a capitalist system has to pay you less than the value of the work you did. And that's not coming back to you in form of welfare, it's just gone.
You can do that now? I won't starve if i quit Right now, It'd be dumb to do so tho.
And besides EVERYONE is suppose to work? If your not working what else would you be doing? Not starve, since many people get laid off and then find new work, its not pleasant, but were not talking about the Modern and Real World. Were talking Social Democracy which completely removes your claims and New Capitalism which addresses them.

Political Democracy is a proven system that has worked for centuries that is demonstratively superior while Workplace democracy is not SIGNIFICANTLY better nor extremely proven, its either just as good or slightly better.
A robust Social net removes any need for workplace democracy, it should be given equal grounds to be formed and go, but not subsidized so it can beat out those dirty capitalists.
 
Let others explain this:
I'm somewhat perturbed by the MJ's beliefs regarding the constitutional vote are being taken as the Gospel truth.

He seems to believe that "legal concepts" referenced in the rewritten constitutional option refer to things like a bicameral legislature and equal representation for all states in the Senate. However, the fact that the decision to create a government that is unitary or federal is separate to the constitutional vote quite clearly demonstrates that such a view is incorrect. After all, if you're voting to have a unitary government, then the rewritten constitution quite clearly can't mean that you're having a federal government with a bicameral legislature and so forth.

Now, it's possible that it might still mean that there would be a separation of powers, with a separate Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary. Of course, at the same time there's nothing to say that the radical constitutional option means there'd be a Parliamentary system either. However, it's worth bearing in mind that the disfunctional nature of US politics is more a reflection of deep political divides than anything else. While Parliamentary systems might, in some respects, be more effective, they are also vulnerable in other ways. At the moment both the UK Parliament and the devolved Northern Irish Assembly are gridlocked by incompetence and partisanship, to the extent that the latter has given up any semblance of actual governance, and forced Westminster to take over. Meanwhile the former prevaricates over Brexit, placing party loyalties above their country.

In any case though, I think that the "legal concepts" referred to by the rewritten constitution refer more to Enlightenment principles in general, like the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, equality before the law, democracy, and so forth.

TL;DR - Dismissing the suggestion to rewrite the Constitution as "stupid" or "pointless" is actually pretty dumb IMO, and relies upon a lot of assumptions and judgements that are either unfair or unproven.
 
Voting is open
Back
Top