http://www.guardian.co.uk/hearafrica05/sto...1491600,00.html

A sad report. Here's a quick run-down as I see it.

Around the world governments are pressured into the great new wealth making idea, liberalising the economy. Pretty much de-regulating everything and allowing the market to run itself. To this end goverments in both developed countries and undeveloped are told to privatise public services.
In developing countries they don't get a choice, as it's part of the demands that need to be bet to get loans.

Now the problem with this is that it doesn't really work for needed services like water and power. Capitalism works when there is healthy competition and the consumer can make choices on where to get a product.

Now with water (or power) the people are hooked up to a grid where they can only get this service from one or a few companies. The corporations have a captive audience. This allows them to exploit their 'customers' because they can not really go anywhere else. If someone is charging a stupidly high price for a bar of chocolate, you simply go to the shop next door and buy it for cheaper. This deprives the greedy business man of a customer. Unfortunately this does not work with public services...

Around the world water prices have increased exponentially after the companies have been privatised. In South America there are currently riots in Bolivia (again) due to the rapid rise in water prices (again) even though this was predicted from before it was de-nationalised.

And this is not limited to these poor countries. In the UK water prices have steadily (and not so steadily) rised since water was privatised. Now think about this. We are in an incredibly wet country. There is more than enough water to go around. And yet every other year there seems to be a hose pipe ban and prices go up. Leaked (aha!) reports have suggested this is due to companies working together and espionaging their own facilities to artificially rise prices. For example closing down pumping stations at peak times for unnecessary maintanence. Absolutely illegal but the profits from this far outweigh the possible repercussions.

Communism fails because it is based on the finer points of human personality. Working for the greater benefit, humility, etc. Unfortunately people are greedy and work for their own gain.
Capitalism flourishes because it recognises this. It relies on human competition and greed.
However people seem to forget that a part of greed involves screwing over anyone you can if it may result in personal gain.

And this is where liberalisation of the economy steps in. De-regulating and the removal of checks and balances in the economy through lobbying by powerful corporations. What this means is that it is easier for these wealthy companies to exploit the people they are suppossed to be catering for.

In developed countries we have a voice and can slow down this trend, but to date it seems impossible to stop it.

In the developing world there is no such luxury.

It's all rather depressing I find...

And I realise I'm probably preaching to the converted here. Just had to get that off my chest somewhere.

So the best bet is somewhere between socialism and capitalism? Yep, I'd agree with that. We can't expect everything for nothing, but neither should we have to pay the world to get it.

Yup. And goverment needs to step in and regulate the process for the benefit of it's people.

The trouble is that such an economy will not be as efficient as a more Capitalistic one. It will find it hard to compete internationally.

This may be mediated with trade barriers, tariffs, or something but it still remains.

On the plus side, people won't need two jobs and a 60 hour working week in order to pay their bills.

I'm pretty sure a true theocracy can reap the benifits of both, but God hasn't talked to us in years and it doesn't seem like he will anytime soon.

Call me daft, but how on earth would a theocracy be better than other options? Did God give instructions on how to counteract a trade deficit? If God were talking to us in a way that was undoubtable then that would change the whole world into a theocracy overnight. Like you say, this hasn't happened, and considering the lack of consistency in God's previous communications (one minute he's got blue skin and six arms, the next he's chubby bald chap who likes laughing, then he's a carpenter's son, and many other things in-between, before and after) it is highly unlikely that he's about to do this anytime soon.

The trouble with a theocracy is that they are just an excuse to set up a dictatorship. Unless God fancies incarnating itself and sitting on the government then it will always be run by men. When men think that they have the word of God then they tend to see things in very simple terms of black and white. Like I say, God's messages to earth have so far been rather inconsistent, leaving many grey areas. When you get two people following different words of God then you often end up with a lot of trouble. That's no way to start a peaceful and stable society.

The truuble with communism is that its an excuse to set up a dictatorship. Kings don't really fit into a theocracy because in a true theocracy, God is in charge, the leader is just representing his word. Consider the time of Moses, his brother was a leader too. But when Moses left to speak with God, Aaron led the people to idolatry and chaos ensued. God fixed this by killing off the sinners.
Why God doesn't remain this consistent I do not know. But perhaps chaos on earth is for the best.

No, facism is trying to set up a dictatorship, communism just requires them as a step towards it's ultimate goal, but power corrupts people so there has never been a fully functioning final-stage communist state because there always remains a guy at the top.

We have had theocracies before, and still do. The pharoah's land was a theocracy. Many middle-eastern countries, rating as some of the oldest organised nations in the world, are theocracies. If the Christian God really does swoop down and smite unbelievers then either he's been looking the other way for a long time now or it is absolutely fine with the Islamic states the way they are.

I fail to see the difference between a dictatorship and "God [being] in charge, the leader is just representing his word." So you have one person, probably a man, at the top of the ladder. The power of being a single leader of men corrupts you, and without any God actively taking part in the politics of the human world (which the presence of varying theoracies would suggest) there is no way to assess whether the leader would be conveying the word of God or just self-serving nonsense to reinforce their own power base, for example by discouraging the use of condoms so that the numbers of your congregation multiply even when this isn't in the best interests of your people.

Any theocracy would need a strict set of balances in place to maintain a determination to act for the good of God's people. You could do this by having a group of people with opposing interpretations of God's words to vote on rules that govern the people. You also might want to make sure that no leader can hold on to power for too long if their will is being harmful to God's people, because what is bad for them must be bad for God. God loves his flock and wants the best for them, right? Without active intervention from God then the will of the people must be considered to be a reflection of God's intentions in the world.

So, what you need is a system whereby competing groups, let's call them 'parties', are chosen, let's call this 'elected', by God's people, let's call them 'the population of the country', because this is the only available system to enforce some level of accountability for the leader's actions.

If only we had such a system of parties the could be elected by the population of the country to maintain a level of accountability for the leader's actions.



Wait a moment!

We already have that!

A theocracy would be a really daft idea. It would rely on the process of either a dictatorship, leading to great misery for anyone who disagreed with the leader, or direct and frequent intervention of God in the affairs of man, something that you yourself freely admit has been greatly lacking in recent times, not to mention contradicting the notion of individual's right to free will.

EDIT: And don't try to tell me that a leader can rule by following the word of God in a religious text such as the Bible. There are countless different interpretations which can be used to justify almost any act of barbarism if you read it in a certain light. If there were only one form of Christianity, or any other major world religion, then maybe I wouldn't be so fast to dismiss your idea, but given that religious leaders can't even agree on what their texts tell people to do for their spiritual good I don't see how they would ever be able to organise the economy for the correct distribution of taxes (for example) by following God's books.

This brings me back to my point that perhaps man isn't supposed to have a perfect government in order to better understand our dependancy on God to become perfect.
As for the economy in a theocracy, since the church is the government, 1/10 of everybody's income goes to the church. I'm pretty sure the tith system is well described in the bible.

Considering that around 50% of a person's income in most European countries goes to the government to ensure that hospitals, fire brigades, the police, and the country are all run correctly, I feel that your grasp of fiscal policy derived from the Bible may be slightly antiquated. Just a touch. A tiny bit. Hardly so anyone would notice.

There's the first flaw right there. A flat rate of income tax does a lot more harm to those on lower earnings. For them, that 10% could buy a lot, but for the rich, it's only a dent in their savings, and wouldn't really affect the amount of money they intend to spend. Flat rate income tax is almost as evil as Indirect taxation (which is completely regressive - it takes a larger proportion of the poor's income than it does from the rich)

Besides which, you try running a government with only 10% of National Income. What about corporations? Would you tax them? What does your bible say about setting the interest rate or the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement?

Edit: Oh, I forgot. Christian macroeconomics seems to say 'spend, spend, spend - never mind the deficit' if George Bush is anything to go by.

mmm. I noticed though.

How does that bring you back to your point?

1) You've not made that point before

2) From the perspective of a religious person, this is a good argument not to have a theoracy, because a theoracy would claim to be perfect while running a country into the ground, making the faithful doubt that their God was really with them. Instead, the failings of a normal government would inspire them to find religion to attain perfection.

On that note, weren't you trying to argue for a Christian theocracy? Mainstream Christianity states that only God is perfect, the best we can hope for is salvation from sinfulness. Unless you were arguing for a Gnostic Christian theocracy, which I highly doubt because it would use the Gnostic texts (books previously in the Bible but later removed by the Church) as well as the usual Bible, and would utterly undermine any solid basis for not only a system of government but also an overarching Christian church structure.

Now, if you want a functioning theocracy then clearly you must be arguing for a non-Christian one. There is a great deal of evidence that suggests that Islam has produced a very functional model for society, although admittedly it is one that is dramatically behind the modern views of social equality. The historical evidence is there though: Islamic theocracies work. Given that Christian theocracies always seem to fall apart after a few hundred years, at most, I can only assume that it is an Islamic state that you are desiring. As you are a Christian I find this very noble of you that you would put the good of your people above your own personal beliefs...

Unless that wasn't what you meant... Then... Oh my goodness! You meant that you wanted to opress anyone who didn't agree with your religious views for the sake of a social order that would most likely be corrupt and disfunctional! Surely that can't be what you are intending to suggest! Would you really want to force your views on every person in your country even if they had a very solid faith in a different religion? Surely you wouldn't suggest that this is a good idea? I can only assume that you wanted to bring in an Islamic theocracy, which at least has been proven to be a functioning social model for society and to very kindly renounce your own faith to exist in the service of Allah. That's very kind of you.

I did make that point, it was just very subtle. Read the last sentance of that post.
It is an arguemant for theocracy because man can not be perfect without God and a government of God therefore must be perfect.
The only reason christian (or Isrealite) theocracies never work is due to man's faults, not God's.
A Christian theocracy isn't supposed to opress. People who don't share the views of the theocracy are just not allowed in it. People who are in it have made a covenant with God so they are responsible for their actions and must be punished if they break the law, the 10 commandments.

"A government of God" would be staffed by humans, who are imperfect, meaning that the government is imperfect. Unless you've got an actual physical embodiment of God sitting in the throne, you're going to have an imperfect government. Even then, that would require 'heaven on earth', quite literally, in order to create a perfect society. I think we all agree that's unlikely to happen, and since we're talking a normal theocracy, run by humans, lets stick with ripping that to shreds, eh?

Even the best intentioned theocracy will oppress, because, as you said "People who don't share the views of the theocracy are just not allowed in it". That means that people who disagree with the theocracy (which will no doubt take a dictatorial form, whatever you call it) have NO representation, and will be institutionally discriminated against at the very least.

You say the people that form the government must obey the 10 commandments. Is that all they have to obey? There's absolutely nothing in there which could be regarded as a ready-made constitution for a theocracy. Unless there's one somewhere else in the Bible, I'd love to know what exactly would prevent the leaders turning the country into an oppressive tinpot dictatorship - and don't tell me they wouldn't. History (even the bible) is enough of an argument for why the devoutly religious should be kept as far away from any position of political or military power as possible.

Would the 10 commandments be applied to those unfortunate enough to live under your ideal government? If so, I'd imagine that quite a lot of people might take issue with it. Particularly the first one.

And you haven't answered my questions about economic policy yet. And when you're done with those, I've got a hell of a lot more questions about how you'd use the Bible for the Theocratic Nutters Party manifesto.

So you would throw out everyone who wasn't Christian? How very charitable.

In that case then I vote for a Native American theocracy. They've got more right to the country than any of the rest of the world. They should chuck you all out and see how you like it. You could go and live in Jerusalem and feel closer to your God if you like.

Also, as I said before, there is no single version of Christianity, so you would have to have a very defined set of rules about which sect of the religion you wanted. If you would be thinking that this theocracy of yours should be America then you're going to have to deal with the gross hypocrisy of places like Texas where the same people who are signing bills making abortion more difficult to 'honour the sanctity of life' are also signing the most death sentences in the country.

'Love above all else' sounds like that should rank above Old Testament rules about homosexuality and the ranting of Paul. Love comes first, sure, lust is corrupting, but it's corrupting for heterosexual couples as well as gay ones, so by the words of Jesus then homosexuality should be fine if people are in love. I'll let you untangle all that when you start your theocratic state.

So this is my point: the rules set down in the Bible are so flexible and malleable to the will of the reader that they cannot be used as a sound basis for a Christian theocracy. Yes, that is man's weakness, but it also means that if the Christian God wanted people to create a Christian theocracy then he really would have been a lot more specific:

Thou shalt not follow people around continually against their will

Thou shalt not infringe the legislated rule of copyright unless the individual holding the original ownership of the copyright has not died in the previous 50 years.

Thou shalt not trespass.

Thou shalt not adorn your car with items that would be distracting to other drivers.

It's a nice idea to think that the world could be simply ruled with ten laws, but the modern world just isn't like that.

This is not a criticism of Christianity; I am simply arguing that it was never designed to be the dominant social scheme for entire nations. It can work in communities, but when the number of people increases then so does the complexity. You could probably make it work by removing all modern technology and media, but again you would most likely be left with a relatively small community of people who wished to live by your interpretation of Christianity, and not their one that allows them to live in the modern world.

Your problem is that the whole world is populated and owned by nations. You would have to eject everyone who disagrees with your rules. When you are making the rules you will make them to attempt to preserve control and enforcement of the rules, leading to a power structure which immediately undermines the instructions for humbleness given in the Bible. Christianity is supposed to operate in communities, and can do that very well, not as a system of government.

Would that not kind of defenestrate the whole idea of freewill?

Isn't the idea that it's people who decide good or evil, because otherwise we're just like puppets on a string and it's all a bit pointless? And so if it were God who made the government 'perfect', it wouldn't really be worth anything anyway...

What I'm really trying to say is that in my opinion, the only perfect government is one that is ruled by God. I'm not saying that it should or will happen in today's world.
As for free will, a theocracy is not against it. You would always have the option to leave the society to do what you want. If you choose to stay, it is not because you are a puppet, but rather you want to be perfect with God.

That is the point that I have understood that you are making. I've listened to it, but I'm arguing that it is impossible for that to happen because God has been very lax at ruling anything directly for a very long time.

You say that "the only perfect government is one that is ruled by God" but you yourself agree that this cannot happen unless God decides to manifest itself on a very regular and reliable basis. This basis would have to be verifiable, to prevent corruption (the president walks into the room 'Oh yes, God appeared to me while I was in the toilet, he says that I must deflower all the local virgins... You can't argue with it! God told me to!'). If there were any verifiable evidence of God's existence then the whole question would be pointless anyway because it would change the entire nature of social reality. Furthermore, God giving evidence of its existence would also prevent the choice of faith being a test. With evidence of God, who wouldn't then believe in it and would choose instead to go to hell? That would be removing the whole point of faith. There would be no religion any more, instead religion would be a branch of science because it would be based on demonstrable facts.

Because, for the purposes of God's will to test us, there can never be this evidence of God then there can never be a 'perfect government', so why are you suggesting it would be a good idea to have a theocracy? Any theocracy would not have the check of God's direct intervention so would always be massively prone to corruption and would instead be simply described by the usual term of 'dictatorship'.

Do you accept that without the direct intervention of God any theocracy is fundamentally just an idealistic dictatorship? (Bearing in mind that not all dictatorships are actually bad for the people. Many have existed in a very socially stable and positive situation in the Middle-East for centuries.)

I still think you are missing the point that we are making about the population of a theocracy. There would always be people there when you started one that would not agree with you. You say that 'they could choose to leave the society' but you miss out the obvious words that come after that 'or else we will...' you will what? How will you enforce the removal of people who disagree with you? Would it be a criminal offence to disagree with you? What about children, how old do they have to be before, if they disagree with you, they would have to leave their families behind? What you are arguing for is a cult, not a social structure.

I agree, it would be lovely if we could live in a unified society that all had a level of spiritual awareness, understanding of our responsibility for our own actions, and for the well-being of others. This is just idealism. Many people really don't give a damn about matters of spiritual health, and that is their demoncratic choice. The major religions of the world cannot even agree on a single interpretation of their own texts, so there isn't a hope that at this level of evolution that we will move any closer to a unified faith for the world than we already are. There are Jews that say Jesus was the Messiah, there are Christians who use the Bible as justification for killing each-other, Muslims split apart into factions within only a few generations of the faith beginning and fight about it to this day... The list goes on. Like I say, I think it's a nice idea to have a unified spiritual world, but Christianity has shown no potential for being able to make this happen and frankly All this goes to argue that religion has nothing to do with realistic options for any near-future propositions for social reform which is what this thread was originally discussing. Keep religion away from government otherwise you will only bring millenia of conflicts to your door, conflicts that we could do without when we are trying to create a more equitable world for everyone.

Communism fails because the leaders will quickly corrupt and completely override the system. On paper, communism is generously sugarcoated. Much of the revenue, instead of returning to the people, is given to the leaders.
The political leaders under Communism abuse other powers as well, as exhibited in WWII, when Joseph Stalin systematically murdered 20 million people FROM HIS OWN COUNTRY.

Don't get me wrong, Russia's transition to Democracy hasn't been all sugarplum fairies and candy-canes, either.

I can't really say whether I'm capitalist or in-between, I just want it to be the best possible for the little guy. As in, small government, but iron-fisted monopoly control.

Well, Russia has suffered, from the beginning. First the Czars drained the country of resources. Then, the Communists came in, and were worse than the Czars. Now that Communism has fallen, the Blackmarketeers and Mobsters are shipping the country to Switzerland, one Ruble at a time... Russians just can't seem to catch a break...