Total Posts:65|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Social Services

fresnoinvasion
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2009 2:26:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The policy topic next year has to do with a federal increase of social services for those living in poverty, in the US.

What social service do you believe is most beneficial to US citizens?

However, keep in mind that most social services can be implemented at the state level... Which type of social service would benefit the most from federal funds without being able to be done by the states?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2009 2:47:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Huh. "Hypothetical" question. If all social services directed at poverty are harmful, how do we determine the most beneficial one?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2009 2:48:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
For that matter, define social service.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2009 6:50:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/15/2009 2:26:29 PM, fresnoinvasion wrote:
The policy topic next year has to do with a federal increase of social services for those living in poverty, in the US.

What social service do you believe is most beneficial to US citizens?

However, keep in mind that most social services can be implemented at the state level... Which type of social service would benefit the most from federal funds without being able to be done by the states?

Social programs related to funding for job training (state run in exchange for federal funds) with oversight to ensure against nepotism. Add this, fix the Bankruptcy code to make it more supportive of start up businesses, and work on grants for business capital funding (that are well publicized) and you're all set when it comes to healthy, sane workers. *

I don't have enough information to provide an informed decision on insane, unhealthy or disabled individuals, however.

*You could also provide federal funds to encourage states to enact a series of social reforms, including vocation-related college level education and improved localized development of trade in goods or services.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2009 9:45:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/15/2009 2:47:21 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Huh. "Hypothetical" question. If all social services directed at poverty are harmful, how do we determine the most beneficial one?

Helping those who lack luck is harmful?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2009 10:28:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/19/2009 9:45:13 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
At 6/15/2009 2:47:21 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Huh. "Hypothetical" question. If all social services directed at poverty are harmful, how do we determine the most beneficial one?

Helping those who lack luck is harmful?

Luck is of minimal importance at best, life is not a lottery.

Yes, sacrificing the successful on the altar of need is harmful.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
SportsGuru
Posts: 1,648
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2009 10:32:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/15/2009 2:47:21 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Huh. "Hypothetical" question. If all social services directed at poverty are harmful, how do we determine the most beneficial one?

Thats why there are satirical affirmatives.
threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2009 10:58:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Luck is of minimal importance at best, life is not a lottery.

Life IS a lottery, all of this is the only possible outcome of a beginning we had no control over. Luck is the only factor that dictates success.

Yes, sacrificing the successful on the altar of need is harmful.

Harmful for who? 80% of the world is poor.
http://www.globalissues.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 12:29:34 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Life IS a lottery, all of this is the only possible outcome of a beginning we had no control over. Luck is the only factor that dictates success.

The problem with that is that if we have no control there is no point in recommending anything, no point in arguing politics, nothing is helpful or harmful because no goals have been chosen.

Harmful for who? 80% of the world is poor.
And that's in the context of a world with these "social services." Obviously the social services aren't fixing the problem, and given how the taxes make it so fewer people can be employed...

Better yet, R_R, define "success."
Since we're in the context of economics, success is material production. "Social services" in the sense we're talking about reduce the numbers of people who reach a given level of material production, by reducing the incentive to go for it-- ultimately, of course, acting counter even to being able to pay for these services in the future, let alone paying for the things one values.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 8:20:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The problem with that is that if we have no control there is no point in recommending anything, no point in arguing politics, nothing is helpful or harmful because no goals have been chosen.

Arguing is evolutionarily good because it helps solve problems. Also, the most of us are too conceited to discard the illusion of free will, so the weak minded won't crash and die at the realization that they have no REAL control. I understand everything is already going to happen but I like to go along for the ride anyway.

And that's in the context of a world with these "social services." Obviously the social services aren't fixing the problem, and given how the taxes make it so fewer people can be employed...

Obviously blind, greed motive isn't working out for the world either. Our world is under a capitalist system with a few little laws. Taxation (or other government intervention) which you apparently are hurt so much by is actually helping the upper class keep their slaves in check: If there were no regulation, what do you think the working class would do? What do you think people do when the oppressor is too corrupt or too apparent? There needs to be limitations if the owning class wants keep their superiority.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 10:32:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/20/2009 8:20:33 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
The problem with that is that if we have no control there is no point in recommending anything, no point in arguing politics, nothing is helpful or harmful because no goals have been chosen.

Arguing is evolutionarily good because it helps solve problems.
I'm not ultimately interested in evolution. I'm interested in the life I have chosen.

Also, the most of us are too conceited to discard the illusion of free will
Until you can prove it is an illusion, by premises you can also establish, ad hominems about those who disagree with you on that account are out of place.


And that's in the context of a world with these "social services." Obviously the social services aren't fixing the problem, and given how the taxes make it so fewer people can be employed...

Obviously blind, greed motive isn't working out for the world either.
Fallacious, greed has never been left unhindered.

Our world is under a capitalist system with a few little laws.
A few?
Can you even list them all? If you could describe each law with one letter you'd still run out of the character limit thousands of times over. There isn't a person in the United States, typically considered one of the most "capitalist" countries, who knows all the laws that apply there.

Taxation (or other government intervention) which you apparently are hurt so much by is actually helping the upper class keep their slaves in check
The "Upper class" is the slave, on which the so called "working class" (which does the least productive work per capita) depends without usually so much as a thank-you, and quite often with a court complaint, for raising their standard of living beyond the medieval fruits that would be the limit of their own effort.

If there were no regulation, what do you think the working class would do? What do you think people do when the oppressor is too corrupt or too apparent? There needs to be limitations if the owning class wants keep their superiority.
Oppressor, right. It's so oppressive to be offered a job at a salary that can buy amounts many times what you could earn in the absence of the "oppressors." Despite failing to meet the minimum definition of oppression, of forcing them to go that route, of taking away the previous route.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 3:15:21 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/20/2009 10:32:43 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

The "Upper class" is the slave, on which the so called "working class" (which does the least productive work per capita) depends without usually so much as a thank-you

Hi Ragnar, could you please provide some statistics to explain what you can possibly mean by saying the working class does the least productive work per capita as this makes no sense to me.
In the obvious example of any manufacturing industry it is the workers who produce the goods themselves and they must be paid less than the value of what they produce for the company to be successful.
The only thing the CEO is producing is profit for himself and he is rewarded more the less he can get away with paying his workforce.

It's so oppressive to be offered a job at a salary that can buy amounts many times what you could earn in the absence of the "oppressors."

People do not sit around being offered jobs they don't want. People are forced by necessity to get up and get whatever job they can find to survive and support their family. Most people living in poverty work very hard indeed and do not receive the value of what they produce. Most professionals and those who inherit wealth hardly break a sweat and are paid more than they need.
threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 10:08:14 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm interested in the life I have chosen.

The life that was always going to happen. You were always going to make the choices you've "chosen". There is no actual control so why even call it a choice?

Until you can prove it is an illusion, by premises you can also establish, ad hominems about those who disagree with you on that account are out of place.

I already did: "all of this is the only possible outcome of a beginning we had no control over".

Do you not believe in cause and effect? Do you believe your brain is unaffected by cause and effect? If not, it would be illogical to believe in such a thing as free will. The present is a product of the past, the future will be a product of the present, if you can't control the past how can you control the present?

Anyways, you're the one with the burden of proof. The same as the theists.

A few?
Can you even list them all?

That's stupid. I'll give you your list when you can list every instance that a privately owned business has ever committed fraud, it would be longer. Government is nothing compared to the capitalist system of the modern, industrialized world.

The "Upper class" is the slave, on which the so called "working class" (which does the least productive work per capita) depends without usually so much as a thank-you, and quite often with a court complaint, for raising their standard of living beyond the medieval fruits that would be the limit of their own effort.

The Owning class controls the means of production: Ohh... Telling people what to do is SUCH hard work! The proletariat creates all wealth and all the goods that the owning class steals without remorse. So the workers (which is the majority of humanity), who sustain their own existence, while being hindered by the parasite that is the bourgeoisie are dependent?

Oppressor, right. It's so oppressive to be offered a job at a salary that can buy amounts many times what you could earn in the absence of the "oppressors." Despite failing to meet the minimum definition of oppression, of forcing them to go that route, of taking away the previous route.

You're ignoring reality. The bourgeoisie couldn't care less about the welfare of the workers. They will pay them as little as they can to maintain profits. The poor are threatened with social death if they do not engage in the wage slavery of capitalism.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 10:53:05 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/21/2009 10:08:14 AM, threelittlebirds wrote:
The Owning class controls the means of production: Ohh... Telling people what to do is SUCH hard work! The proletariat creates all wealth and all the goods that the owning class steals without remorse. So the workers (which is the majority of humanity), who sustain their own existence, while being hindered by the parasite that is the bourgeoisie are dependent?

That is actually kind of silly. The "owning class" as you call them do more work than just telling others what to do. Usually the "owning class" will do as much work as the proletariat will, but through different means. The proletariat will produce and distribute, as you say, but the "owning class" works to secure the materials for production, secure the channels in which to distribute, secure and handle the money that is returned from the production and distribution, etc. They're both depending upon each other in order to actually be able to churn that profit, so both can earn their wages. The bourgeoisie isn't the only group that is dependent.

You're ignoring reality. The bourgeoisie couldn't care less about the welfare of the workers.

This is why workers will form unions. No problem there, I think unions are important in order to secure the safety, well-being and fairness of payment. But the unions we have these days are so corrupt, so bloated and so oppressive that they put companies and competitive disadvantages in order to secure the "welfare of the workers."
Listen, it isn't necessarily about "welfare of the workers". It is about churning a profit, and if bloated unions don't allow the company to reach that profit, the "welfare of the workers" won't even matter because there will be no work.

They will pay them as little as they can to maintain profits. The poor are threatened with social death if they do not engage in the wage slavery of capitalism.

They're threatened with the collapse of an economy, not "social death." Even if we had no economy, our society still exists, just not in the state it is now.

Besides, "wage slavery"? Do you honesty believe that communism isn't a form of "wage slavery" in and of itself?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 11:20:20 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/21/2009 10:08:14 AM, threelittlebirds wrote:
I'm interested in the life I have chosen.

The life that was always going to happen. You were always going to make the choices you've "chosen". There is no actual control so why even call it a choice?
Because I am aware of alternatives available to me.


Until you can prove it is an illusion, by premises you can also establish, ad hominems about those who disagree with you on that account are out of place.

I already did: "all of this is the only possible outcome of a beginning we had no control over".
Do you understand the word "Proof?"


Do you not believe in cause and effect? Do you believe your brain is unaffected by cause and effect? If not, it would be illogical to believe in such a thing as free will.
I believe my brain is caused to have alternatives available to it. I do not see any evidence that there is a sufficient cause for those alternatives to disappear, other than my choice.

The present is a product of the past, the future will be a product of the present, if you can't control the past how can you control the present?
I did control some of the past. Other bits of the past weren't sufficient to make me do things :).


Anyways, you're the one with the burden of proof. The same as the theists.
The evidence is experience of alternatives, it isn't something reducible beyond that. If I experienced God, I would have to be a theist, but I don't.



A few?
Can you even list them all?

That's stupid. I'll give you your list when you can list every instance that a privately owned business has ever committed fraud, it would be longer.
I don't refer to that as "a few," so, not comparable

Government is nothing compared to the capitalist system of the modern, industrialized world
No such system exists. Perhaps you're referring to the Keynesian system, which does exist, and has government as the final say in any instance it wants to, simply a government that occasionally doesn't want to decide.



The "Upper class" is the slave, on which the so called "working class" (which does the least productive work per capita) depends without usually so much as a thank-you, and quite often with a court complaint, for raising their standard of living beyond the medieval fruits that would be the limit of their own effort.

The Owning class controls the means of production
The most important means of production IS the brain of the "owning class" (Other classes own some things to you know).

Telling people what to do is SUCH hard work!
When you have to figure out how to get them to volunteer for it, and figure out what the most efficient thing for them to do would be.

The proletariat creates all wealth and all the goods that the owning class steals without remorse.
How did the owning class come to "own the means of production," factories and so forth?
By being the only ones who knew how to build them.

You're ignoring reality. The bourgeoisie couldn't care less about the welfare of the workers.
Not directly. Indirectly they need the cooperation of the workers, which depends on improving the welfare of the workers.

They will pay them as little as they can to maintain profits.
"As little as they can" happens to be much more than what anyone could achieve without the "owning class."

The poor are threatened with social death
Wtf is that?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 11:55:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Besides, "wage slavery"? Do you honesty believe that communism isn't a form of "wage slavery" in and of itself?

Of course not the workers would be working for themselves, controlling their own means of production. There is no wages or salary in communism.
threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 12:36:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Because I am aware of alternatives available to me.

Consciousness doesn't contradict determinism.

Do you understand the word "Proof?"

You haven't given me any either.

I believe my brain is caused to have alternatives available to it. I do not see any evidence that there is a sufficient cause for those alternatives to disappear, other than my choice.

Then what causes your choice?! Anything that would be independent of cause and effect would have to be supernatural. I wouldn't have guessed you were superstitious.

I did control some of the past. Other bits of the past weren't sufficient to make me do things :).

You did, you cannot presently change the past. Your past self is not the same as your present, therefore the past is an external force which contradicts the definition of free will.

The evidence is experience of alternatives, it isn't something reducible beyond that.

Something caused you to choose whatever option you had among alternatives.

No such system exists. Perhaps you're referring to the Keynesian system, which does exist, and has government as the final say in any instance it wants to, simply a government that occasionally doesn't want to decide.

All the governments are just false institutions maintained by corporations to keep the workers happy.

When you have to figure out how to get them to volunteer for it, and figure out what the most efficient thing for them to do would be.

People would work out of necessity to maintain society and individual comfort, we already do that, the means of production and distribution of wealth could be democratically controlled by the workers.

How did the owning class come to "own the means of production," factories and so forth?

Inheritance and dumb luck. I already answered that in an earlier post.

The poor are threatened with social death
Wtf is that?

Becoming homeless or being degraded to a lower social status.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 12:53:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/21/2009 11:55:42 AM, threelittlebirds wrote:
Besides, "wage slavery"? Do you honesty believe that communism isn't a form of "wage slavery" in and of itself?

Of course not the workers would be working for themselves, controlling their own means of production. There is no wages or salary in communism.

How does that even work out? How do the "workers" control the means of production, without creating at least one group that oversees it?

Besides, it is still "wage slavery" in a way, because while you may not have wages and salary per se, you still have some sort of reward for working. You'll still be a "slave" to that reward. It is still "wage slavery".
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 12:55:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/21/2009 12:36:27 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
The poor are threatened with social death
Wtf is that?

Becoming homeless or being degraded to a lower social status.

I'm not a libertarian like R_R, but even I find this proposition stupid.

If you don't work, you don't get the reward or satisfaction of having money to spend or the respect of your colleagues. You have to work in order to have these things - you must put in the effort, because nothing is going to be handed to you on a silver platter. So yes, you'll be homeless and you'll lose the respect of others, but what do you expect?
threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 1:04:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
That is actually kind of silly. The "owning class" as you call them do more work than just telling others what to do. Usually the "owning class" will do as much work as the proletariat will, but through different means. The proletariat will produce and distribute, as you say, but the "owning class" works to secure the materials for production, secure the channels in which to distribute, secure and handle the money that is returned from the production and distribution, etc. They're both depending upon each other in order to actually be able to churn that profit, so both can earn their wages. The bourgeoisie isn't the only group that is dependent.

The difference is the amount of sweat and blood given. Bourgeois jobs are typically safer and take less physical effort.

They're threatened with the collapse of an economy, not "social death." Even if we had no economy, our society still exists, just not in the state it is now.

Without an economy there would not be enough food for the billions of humans inhabiting the world. Without food people die: No people, no society.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 1:07:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/21/2009 1:04:03 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
The difference is the amount of sweat and blood given. Bourgeois jobs are typically safer and take less physical effort.

So this is physical labour vs. desk jobs? That is what you're basing this on?

Just because one of them works hard labour and the other doesn't, doesn't mean that the latter is somehow worth less than the former. Some people aren't capable of hard physical labour, but they can contribute through management. How is their contribution to the machine any less important?

Without an economy there would not be enough food for the billions of humans inhabiting the world. Without food people die: No people, no society.

Billions of people will die, but not everyone. Remember, we survived perfectly well without capitalism or communism in its current forms before. Society would still exist, just not in the state it is now.
threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 1:25:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If you don't work, you don't get the reward or satisfaction of having money to spend or the respect of your colleagues. You have to work in order to have these things - you must put in the effort, because nothing is going to be handed to you on a silver platter. So yes, you'll be homeless and you'll lose the respect of others, but what do you expect?

Of course I think you should work, not for the good of a small minority, but for yourself and for the good of society as a whole. The poor are forced to work and give almost all of their output to people who barely work.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 1:31:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/21/2009 1:25:08 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
Of course I think you should work, not for the good of a small minority, but for yourself and for the good of society as a whole. The poor are forced to work and give almost all of their output to people who barely work.

Again, this is just your opinion based on whether or not people work in jobs that require hard, physical labour. Those that do the labour make a great contribution to the economic machine, sure. But those that are management and blue-collar jobs also make a great contribution to the machine, but in a different manner. Does it matter the way it is done, as long as it is done?
threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 1:42:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
How does that even work out? How do the "workers" control the means of production, without creating at least one group that oversees it?

In the transitioning stage of socialism they can appoint representatives, but communism definitely wouldn't be a right away thing because current society is to fixed in their ways. It is human nature to adapt to society, not to be greedy. If people need to be less selfish to fit into society, people will either become less selfish or not pass on their genes. The transitioning stage will supposedly get rid of most greed and then consensus will take hold and there will be no need for the state.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 1:46:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/21/2009 1:42:31 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
In the transitioning stage of socialism they can appoint representatives, but communism definitely wouldn't be a right away thing because current society is to fixed in their ways. It is human nature to adapt to society, not to be greedy. If people need to be less selfish to fit into society, people will either become less selfish or not pass on their genes. The transitioning stage will supposedly get rid of most greed and then consensus will take hold and there will be no need for the state.

Problem is that the transitioning stage will never go as according the plan, because there will be no large consensus to move forward in such a way. You would have to force it, but through forcing it you'll create a group of people that are greedy and oppressive anyways. This is a pure dream.

I personally wouldn't support it. I'm for individualism, and if I want to be greedy or altruistic, I'll do as such.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 1:47:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/21/2009 1:31:55 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/21/2009 1:25:08 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
Of course I think you should work, not for the good of a small minority, but for yourself and for the good of society as a whole. The poor are forced to work and give almost all of their output to people who barely work.

Again, this is just your opinion based on whether or not people work in jobs that require hard, physical labour. Those that do the labour make a great contribution to the economic machine, sure. But those that are management and blue-collar jobs also make a great contribution to the machine, but in a different manner. Does it matter the way it is done, as long as it is done?
If the pay scales be a good indicator of how much work a person does, then we would expect that desk jobs require much more work. Only they don't, in any sense. Know why desk jobs tend to pay more than manual labor? Because manual laborers are the most desperate type of worker, so they don't have the power to demand more pay.
It's sad, at least when you realize that the difference between a manual laborer and a desk worker is naught but a slight stroke of fortune.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 1:53:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/21/2009 1:45:09 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
Does it matter the way it is done, as long as it is done?

If its both the same then shouldn't there be equal payment?

In an ideal world, it would be based upon the contribution. But the contribution a position makes to the machine is a hard thing to decipher, so I don't expect that ideal world to be upon us any time soon.
threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 2:00:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Problem is that the transitioning stage will never go as according the plan, because there will be no large consensus to move forward in such a way. You would have to force it, but through forcing it you'll create a group of people that are greedy and oppressive anyways. This is a pure dream.

How do you know? Are you a fortune teller? Lenin was doing fine until he died and Stalin took over. The transitioning stage is supposed to be democratic or have democratically elected representatives. If they are bad leaders we will elect better ones. Its taking a chance but the alternative is barbarism.