The perfect political system.

I really don't understand this. You first claim that free will is an illusion and that actions and therefore outcomes are entirely dependant upon external factors. Okay, if you say so, but I don't see how this implies communism.

Obviously there's a prescriptive definition of perfect then.

Notice that perfect was in quotation marks, leaving others to decide upon their definition of perfection.

<3 x

If no-one has a choice in their life, then in all fairness, no-one should have a better life than someone else.

Let's say we compare two people: me and George Clooney. We've never met, but let me tell you that Mr Clooney is the better looking man and considerably more talented. I like to think I might have the edge when it comes to political philosophy and Star Trek trivia, but all in all he's the luckier out of the two of us. According to you, this is unfair as Clooney is reaping the rewards of his luck, and therefore we should redistribute his wealth to me so we can be more equal. But in another sense, we are already both equal - or we were. We both had the equal chance of being born as George Clooney, he might have got lucky on the dice, but were we not rolling the same dice?

D.R.E. is right, you seem to be talking about economic systems, not political ones.

A competitive market for goods and services provides incentives to work and to be productive. It also relays the choices of individuals in the market to firms via supply/demand and the pricing mechanism. A labour market, on the other hand, ensures that a significant proportion of the workers are unemployed and that the majority of wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few capitalists.

No system will be perfect, however I believe the best system would include a market for goods and services without the existence of a capitalist class. This could work via a market consisting of democratically ran firms.

A 'perfect' system can never exist due to human greed/pride/ambition (delete as appropriate).

/thread.

<3 x

I see when i say political system i mean government ideology.

What assertions do i take as a given? illusion of free will?

Ah, you're right; it was a silly, flippant remark. Socialists and libertarians do advocate political systems though--you can't have a perfect free market or collective ownership of the means of production under the wrong kind of constitutional arrangement; and the ideologies aren't limited to economic concerns--socialists want working class solidarity, libertarians individual freedom in the social sphere, etc.

Hey!

Done.

Hello! How are you?

Not necessarily. If a socialist says 'property should be collectively owned', they don't really say much about the constitutional setup to facilitate that. Obviously, a discussion about which political system would best serve that purpose needs to happen, but it's not inherent within the socialist argument to advocate a certain political system.

But I think we'd all agree that certain constitutional arrangements preclude property being collectively owned; for example, one in which free markets where enshrined the constitution. At very least, socialists and libertarians must advocate the negation of certain political systems and their replacement by others; they must hold certain features of a political system to be desirable.

Honestly? Everything you say is just assertions that lack rigour. You say you think about what the 'perfect' system would be and then say:


[INDENT][INDENT]"i have came to the conclusion about what should be the system used to create fairness and equality to those who are not fortunate but also incentive to contribute".[/INDENT][/INDENT]


Your idea of 'perfect' is just a baseless value judgment that you have done nothing to explain and thus, you take it 'as given'. That's just in the first sentence! The rest of your post is littered with even worse stuff.