Thursday, October 24, 2013

Discussing the Solution

I was watching an episode of The Colbert Report (I just stumbled upon it) and something occurred to me.

There are moments where a solution is proposed and everyone laughs. The solution itself isn't necessarily stupid. It might actually satisfy the aims... If only we'd keep an eye on the aims and whether the means - the solution - is in support of those aims.


Think in terms of communism/socialism. Is communism necessarily a bad thing? The way I hear it being used, it's exactly like a boogeyman.
"You can't do that! You'll invoke socialism!"
Mother's milk in a cup! What the hell is wrong with that? What is the aim?

Take the whole health care debacle. What is the goal? The goal is to make health care accessible. What are the proposed solutions?
  • Rely on "the market" to produce solutions.
    • Given that "the market" exists to be exploitative - that is, to make a profit - then opening up that segment of the market has not thus far been a priority for health care insurers.
  •  As a government subsidize insurance and make it easier for people to compare plans.
    • Sure, this means Government is spending money. To help people! as opposed to spying on and bombing people.
In which case, which of the options better satisfies the goal? The end game. The aim. We have words for it. Why do we invest so damn heavily in the system? If the system has proven itself to not work, then why keep beating a dead horse? Ignoring the problem just means the problem continues to exist and people start to accept the problem instead of thinking "There has to be a better way. We know the problems now. We can fix them."

Democracy keeps being "exported". Why? It's a damn system! And it doesn't work in all cases. For example, where you have 2 or 3 sides in an election who are tribal in nature... that is they don't just appeal to particular people. They represent particular people based upon birth and blood. It's not about income. It's not about status in society. It's based upon what could arguably be considered racism.

I would argue that it's a far better thing for these people to have a republic with no single leader. I mean the literal meaning of republic in that everything is done within a public manner. Everyone knows what's going on, what's being decided upon etc. That representatives from each of those tribal factions get to represent their people's needs.

What is the aim? The aim is for people to be represented at a governmental level. Is democracy the only way of doing this? Absolutely not!

Being a bit of a sci-fi fan, something occurred to me while I was watching Babylon 5. Our planet is a big place fill of diverse people. A North Korean person has adapted to their own situation (humans have an infinite capacity to adapt) and while they're still very much human, you couldn't mistake a North Korean for an... American or a New Zealander once you sat down to talk to them. They're very different. In which case, if ever humans got into space and met up with different alien races, aren't they too likely to be just as diverse?

So who is it that's out in space representing the entirety of the human race? Would New Zealanders be happy being represented by American's? Would American's be happy being represented by Russians? etc.

And would we judge an entire planet based upon what is essentially a snapshot - a single race?

If that's the aim - that diversity is represented by the planet (let's blow this out just so that it's much harder to stereotype people into one group or another): what sort of governance system would work? To me, it would mean that out of necessity, we could not keep secrets. That people would have to know exactly what they were buying into and how they were being represented. Do we stop things that might work because it can be framed as being socialism/communism? Hell - this bears a much bigger discussion (luckily we can discuss in the comments!)....

No comments:

Post a Comment