Is currency evil?

[kx000]

Wealth is love so currency is hugs and kisses.

 

[joepistole]

The main problem with communism and socialism is all the power becomes centralized in government, with little in the way of checks and balances. If human nature does not change, absolute power will corrupt absolutely. At least in democracies the power is distributed between government, businesses, and the masses through elections, lobbying, and consumerism. Nobody is able to obtain absolute power, so if human nature does not change, it is hard for leadership to be corrupted absolutely. No president can set up shop like in North Korea in a democracy.

You are conflating political systems and economic systems. Communism and socialism are economic systems. Democracy and dictatorial systems are political systems. Communism in its purest form, anarchist communism, is very libertarian, very democratic. Communism and socialism are economic systems. Political systems allocate power, economic systems allocate resources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communist_ideologies#Anarchist_communism is very democratic.

We have witnessed capitalistic economic systems in tyrannical political systems and we have seen socialist systems in democratic political systems. The best political systems are those which are open and competitive (i.e. democratic).

The main problem with democracies is not so much the people, since they would be the same masses if the country changed to a socialist or communists government. The real problem in democracies is the election process, does not always allow the will of the people to be served. One is often given the choice of the lessor of two evils, to speak in your behalf, with them beholden to half of the country via political party association in a two party system.

Yes, indeed, the real problem with democracies is the electoral process. In order for a democracy to thrive, it requires well-informed voters.

The election process is designed around money, advertising, rhetoric and mudslinging. The result is those who get elected are often the best at the election process, but they may not be the best for the job, since this is two different skill sets.

As an analogy, say we change the election process to be more like a mixed martial arts tournament. The person who wins this process will become president. The winner of this process will be someone who will be the best fighter. However, being the best fighter may not translate into the best person to run the country since these are two different skill sets. Many good people, who would be good leaders, will not even try because they know they can't compete in the process. One round of mudslinging would knock then out with the powers to be able to do illegal things to get dirt. It is not so much the people making a bad choice at will, but bad choices, by default.
A democracy would be better if the election process was designed to end up with the best people for the job winning. This would eliminate grid lock and other forms of treachery needed by people in power, who lack absolute power, while not being the best for the job.

The current election process has the advantage of making it possible for all the masses to participate. If the process was done in a purely intellectual way ,to choose a qualified leader, this process would lose most of the people,who do not relate well to egghead stuff. The mudslinging and rhetoric, appeals to people who like to gossip and watch fantasy on TV, allowing them to participate. It is not easy to design a process that picks the best while appealing to all levels of understanding.

One change that could be made is the media is often biased for different candidates, with parts of the media biased to each side. At the same time, the media makes a lot of money with campaign adds. One way to make a change of the better would be to call any media bias, a campaign contribution, valued at the time rate they charge for candidates to advertise. There are campaign contribution limits in the law, and if they exceed these limits, they break the law or anyone can break the limit law. This was the press will not become the propaganda wing of any party, but a more balanced source of information for all. This does not limit free speech but obeys campaign law like all businesses need to do.

Your post described the US electoral system, but it isn’t indicative of all democracies. The US once had a better electoral system, back in the days when campaign financing was limited and “The Fairness Doctrine” was the law of the land. Unfortunately, Republicans have trashed both campaign finance laws and The Fairness Doctrine.