What is a properly functioning democracy?

Or assuming a metaphor.

I understand the philosophical motivation as time is a living beings only commodity, however you can't take it with you when you run out. The purpose of time is to learn then to use it wisely when you have it .

In addition to the world banks downturned forecast it said the numbers suggested a lower standard of living in the future.

 

As I said each of their daily living needs are covered by $2.50, which A is earning, while B is earning an additional $2.50 above what he needs, and C is earning an additional $17.50 greater than his needs. A has nothing you could call a surplus as he is spending 100% of his daily earnings, B having $2.50 more than needed to live each day might put it in the bank, spend it, or just put it under his matress for a rainy day, and C having $17.50 greater than his needs could do the same as B.

In an earlier post someone commented that labor is not considered profit, and each of A, B, and C are the only ones providing any labor, if you agree with that poster they are each simply being remunerated for their labor, although not the same as a result of the efforts, expertise, or efficency of their labor.

The demand for their product is such that they each sell 100% of it every day.

Is there something unfair or inequitable in the fact that B is amassing more wealth than A, and C is amassing more wealth than both A and B?

 

I see where you are going with this. I'll let the other guy answer though.

 

On your terms then yes it is inequitable because A B and C are parasitizing D.
Demand for products is driven by marketing not by necessity the truth of which we can see in our landfills.

 

Actually, it began simply as an honest attempt to see if we could begin at a point in which we had no differences, and build on that until we each could discovery what it is that begins to produce views which differ, why and how they might possibly be resolved equitably to everyones satisfaction.

The one question that increasingly seems to be answered by a resounding 'NO', is "Is it possible those on the Left and those on the Right to resolve their differences in a way that can satisfy both?"

 

So that leaves us to choose between returning to being hunter gatherers, or we could make it illegal to produce anything other than the basic necessities of life which could only be traded based on the equality of cost of production between between the items being exchanged. Would that be closer to what you might be promoting? Of course, those who are incapable and/or unable to produce anything would have nothing to trade to acquire their needs so those who are able, and capable, would have to be willing OR forced to produce more than needed to acquire their own needs in order to provide for those who lack adequate means of acquiring for themselves.

It begins to sound like the only solution between Left and Right is to set aside areas in which communes could be created for the Left leaving modern society to be inhabited by the Right.

 

I think you give us a series of false only choices. I think each to their own virtue and we all have one or a few even if it is only to be the object of ridicule. Technology is such that given the impetus we could produce any consumable product for free. What seems the only practical to a large extent stems from what we practice.

There is something to be said for new island ecosystems as new species proliferate in isolation and existing species/systems tend to preserve the status quo. Perhaps we could set aside official enclaves to experiment with novel economies or civil organizations allowing them to tend their own currencies and trade with them to see how we might overhaul our approach to government.

Modern society can still be modern with simplification or improved efficiencies.

 

There isn't one. Democracy is a euphymism for the rich and powerful pushing the little guys and getting them to do what they want.

 

What the USA needs now is someone who presides over the Congress and can force an legislative bills to come to an up or down vote in either legislative Body, in the particular instance of gridlock such as what we have now in this shutdown-debt-ceiling battle.

Congress doesn't feel any motivation from the public disapproval ratings, it's just become a meaningless poll, and it needs meaning.

This job, should be used for forcing bills to be voted on the floor in the case of gridlock when neither party wants to be associated with moving the issue to the floor (they wouldn't vote themselves EVER). And the position would REQUIRE that person to be unaffiliated with ANY political party, and the powers of this job only activate when Congressional approval ratings are 75% or below.

This also means that this job, is not a job that should be elected, rather just appointed.

 

In actuality the House representatives should be presided over by their districts constituents, and the Senate by their State legislatures, who they are each sent as representatives OF to D.C.

The House sent a budget bill to the Senate, where led by Harry Reid, the bill was not brought to the floor for discussion or a vote. Looking at posts on this and other political forums, it would appear the people are gridlocked, and as such maybe Congress is beginning to represent us more properly.