Politics Explained

[noonsun]

http://www.sjgames.com/illuminati/politics.html

 

(I just made this thread coz I want to see what Jay says about how awesome it would be in a pure anarchy with your two cows and correct the bit about the neighbors taking your cows and killing you)

[Tnspieler1012]

lol'd at surrealism, I've seen similar things to this talking about religion. I'm sure Jay will comment, but he's more of an anarcho-capitalist than a pure anarchist.

[Saffire]

Anarcho-capitalism is pure anarchism, because capitalism is an anarchic economic system (has no central planner). The currency is determined by the individual members of the economy, and typically those individuals choose a currency that has solid backing and common usage like gold or a third-party-verified credit system. Hayek writes a lot on this subject of spontaneous order in markets, including spontaneous acceptance of a common non-government currency.

 

All the other forms of government listed fall into a single category: kleptocracy.

 

Anyway that's the simplified voluntaryist perspective!

[chuck kottke]

No Democratic state can exist for long without the formation of a vibrant Middle Class, and that Middle Class requires nurturing by a government of the people, which promotes the common good, and secures the blessings of liberty.

Capitalism requires no central planner, but does need a good referee, and a stable class with enough leisure time to consider correct measure for the improvements necessary to build a better society. (and by leisure time I mean time to study, think, interact, and participate as citizens).

Are we seeing Adam Smith at work above, or Alexander Hamilton?

[Matter-Eater Lad]

No Democratic state can exist for long without the formation of a vibrant Middle Class, and that Middle Class requires nurturing by a government of the people, which promotes the common good, and secures the blessings of liberty.

Capitalism requires no central planner, but does need a good referee, and a stable class with enough leisure time to consider correct measure for the improvements necessary to build a better society. (and by leisure time I mean time to study, think, interact, and participate as citizens).

Are we seeing Adam Smith at work above, or Alexander Hamilton?

 

100% wrong. All government does is attack the middle class. All my years of research that is all I can see is case after case of government truly hurting the people even when it tries to help. It was free markets going against governments that helped the people. Government throughout the years has made people poor slaves of the state, while people have pulled themselves up wit capitalism creating a middle class. And that middle class is shrinking now and is under attack by the "referee" who is supposed to be helping it? Government has a very few amount of functions, regulating every aspect of the economy is not one of them.

 

It was Capitalism that brought the poor of poverty in spite of the government protecting themselves and the rich. The referee calls the game in favor of itself and friends, thus what is the point?

[Space Cadet]

So where do you sign up for surrealism?

 

I want a giraffe! :cheesy: ...And a harmonica! :nice:

 

Water Buffalo in every garage! :wacko:

[Saffire]

Chuck, I really want you to read some stuff about Praxeology, I can find you an article if you'd like. I think you'd be really interested in it.

 

The theory goes that all your life is comprised of many individual choices back-to-back. Even when you aren't doing anything, that's a choice. So every decision you make is economical, including how you spend your time - either working or at leisure. I think Americans are often overworked, I agree. But I don't think this is a byproduct of "hyper-capitalism" or whatever. It is the employment friction and difficulty holding a job that gives employers a huge advantage when it comes to having discretion about who to hire and fire.

 

In an economy without regulation or interest-rate manipulation, employment would remain full at all times. There is always work to be done, and always people who are willing to trade a portion of their free time for dollars. Involuntary unemployment is not a natural part of a free market because demand is unlimited, and credit is never naturally so monopolized by one entity (the federal government).

 

I think in a free market, unemployment would only be frictional (below 2%) and all employment would be voluntary and rewarding for everyone involved. Prices would be held low so quality of life is maximized for the lower and middle classes. Saving would be easy and nobody would NEED to work long hours in a grueling environment. This type of relationship isn't beneficial to the employer or employee. Bosses would be friendly and accommodating because finding other work would be a snap for a laborer in a vibrant, entrepreneurial free market.

[chuck kottke]

100% wrong. :laugh3: I was expecting some loud, contrarian response from you, Nick.;) All government does is attack the middle class. That's what the Hessians were for. All my years of research that is all I can see is case after case of government truly hurting the people even when it tries to help. Because it's been hijacked by ultra-capitalists, who refuse themselves to play by rules of fair economic conduct. It was free markets going against governments that helped the people. It was regulated business practices that reigned in the era of the robber barons. But that was before the government became a tool of the robber barons completely. Government throughout the years has made people poor slaves of the state Wrong. Government promoted the growth of the middle class, until some of the very wealthy decided to destroy the middle class, exempt themselves from most taxes, and make the working classes pay for everything. , while people have pulled themselves up wit capitalism creating a middle class. Never mind the good roads, the public schools, the infrastructure improvements steered and done with government direction and assistance.. And that middle class is shrinking now and is under attack by the "referee" who is supposed to be helping it? Simply because the referee has been hijacked by a wealthy minority that doesn't give a damn about being fair with the citizens of our great nation. Government has a very few amount of functions, regulating every aspect of the economy is not one of them. Not every aspect, but after the failures, I would say some aspects. The big money pulled out the stops and led to the disaster..

 

It was Capitalism that brought the poor of poverty in spite of the government protecting themselves and the rich. The referee calls the game in favor of itself and friends, thus what is the point?

Sure, it's a good motivator, and works fine - but like any game, it needs an honest referee; to get the honest referee is the issue - and I would start by electing honest representation. Begin with organizing for numerous small contributions, so elected officials represent the will of the citizens. Then set up carefully crafted checks and balances, restore the 4th estate, and insulate representatives from lobbyists. Pass an amendment guaranteeing the Right to Fair Elections and Fair Contests for Office, and get some honest people on the bench.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

Sure, it's a good motivator, and works fine - but like any game, it needs an honest referee; to get the honest referee is the issue - and I would start by electing honest representation. Begin with organizing for numerous small contributions, so elected officials represent the will of the citizens. Then set up carefully crafted checks and balances, restore the 4th estate, and insulate representatives from lobbyists. Pass an amendment guaranteeing the Right to Fair Elections and Fair Contests for Office, and get some honest people on the bench.

 

It's the age old flaw that government is the solution and answer to our problems. How many thousands of years has it been wrong and we still cling to it? How many times must if fail before we realize it's not the solution? Maybe another 5,000 years and we'll realize what's been in front of our face since the beginning. Humans are slow learners.

 

How long will we cling to the old way and chains of failed ideas? We're feeble minded and need a king or ruler to lead us and make our decisions, control everything.

[Space Cadet]

^^Good luck with that, Chuck.

 

Basically the way I see it, people suck. When money or power is involved, people suck a lot. Even nice, good, honest people will eventually begin to suck sooner or later once in a position where power and money is available.

 

Systems are all about trying to make them suck less so that people can at least live on the same planet. The trick is to do it while not totally screwing over everyone involved. Which is impossible.

 

True communism is actually a wonderful idea. The problem is the moment people get involved they screw it up. Monarchies have proved over the centuries to be one of the simplest and most effective means of rule. The problem is you then have a human king or queen. More often than not, they suck. In the name of giving power to the people, we have democracy. It's an imperfect system to start with. Everyone gets their second choice between bad and worse, but at least they have a choice. The problem is that the people then get to show just how much they suck en masse. AND you then have all sorts of elected officials. Most of whom seriously suck. And then there's the beloved anarchy...where all the aggressive jerks who suck get their way all the time. And don't think religion escapes this. I know it's been a trend lately to talk about how religion screws everything up and is responcible for all the world's woes, but in my experience it's the only surefire way to overcome some small modicum of personal suckage. Unfortunately it's still looked after by humans who would use it as a shield for their own selfish agendas, or who just plain find a way to suck. So really, it doesn't matter what it is, people will still screw it up.

 

Hooray for us. :(

[chuck kottke]

[/url]:laugh3:Yes, well Rachel, I think it can happen. Feudalism is past, monarchs no longer rule, and human progress has occured. I have optimism.

Basically the way I see it, people suck. When money or power is involved, people suck a lot. Even nice, good, honest people will eventually begin to suck sooner or later once in a position where power and money is available.

A little guy named James Madison studied why the ancient Republics failed, and help craft a pretty good one for the US, albeit in need of a major upgrade. He was after a prize greater than power or money - he really wanted a government that would serve the best interests of it's people, and check the natural tendencies towards power and corruption. I agree with you - and especially those social ladder climbers who want power - they are after it worse than anyone!! But when they screw up as badly as they have, things do change.

 

Systems are all about trying to make them suck less so that people can at least live on the same planet. The trick is to do it while not totally screwing over everyone involved. Which is impossible.

Yes. Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest (Churchill I believe said it). But all I really want is to better the odds - utopia isn't even in my mind (except when I'm dreaming about chocolate or something else..)

 

True communism is actually a wonderful idea. Marx in Soho. It's worth a read! ;)The problem is the moment people get involved they screw it up. Bolsheviks hijack it - true. Monarchies have proved over the centuries to be one of the simplest and most effective means of rule. :crown: I would be a most benevolent ruler, honestly I would!;) The problem is you then have a human king or queen. More often than not, they suck. Catherine the Great? Yes, rare though.. In the name of giving power to the people, we have democracy. It's an imperfect system to start with. That's why we should all buy stock in DieBold, ES&S, and the new outfit from their merger. If we all had a share, then tampering wouldn't be as tempting. BTW - have these aggressive firms pushed voting machines up in Nova Scotia? Everyone gets their second choice between bad and worse, but at least they have a choice. All politics is the art of compromise, but that compromise need not be so compromising to our commonly shared rights as citizens.. The problem is that the people then get to show just how much they suck en masse. :laugh3:AND you then have all sorts of elected officials. Most of whom seriously suck. And then there's the beloved anarchy...where all the aggressive jerks who suck get their way all the time. :pirate::pirate::pirate: Pirates might be better. At least they shared the loot equally among their shipmates!;) And don't think religion escapes this. I know it's been a trend lately to talk about how religion screws everything up and is responcible for all the world's woes, but in my experience it's the only surefire way to overcome some small modicum of personal suckage. Well, there's also family, and music, and dogs and cats.. Unfortunately it's still looked after by humans who would use it as a shield for their own selfish agendas, or who just plain find a way to suck. So really, it doesn't matter what it is, people will still screw it up. Unless we get smart, get organized, and craft a more perfect system.;)

 

Hooray for us. :(

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-K7zO3VIl0]YouTube - Supertramp - Bloody Well Right (Studio Version)[/ame]

 

Most people are good basically - it's those who are overly selfish, myopic, and egotistical that do the real damage. Normal people don't suck, but mean people do! I think checks and balances can be re-established - our governments are due for a long overdue overhaul.

[chuck kottke]

Chuck, I really want you to read some stuff about Praxeology, I can find you an article if you'd like. I think you'd be really interested in it.?? Praxeology?

 

The theory goes that all your life is comprised of many individual choices back-to-back. Even when you aren't doing anything, that's a choice. So every decision you make is economical, including how you spend your time - either working or at leisure. All of our choices are neurological I believe.. Perhaps somethings aren't choices either, but more impulses, or habits. I think Americans are often overworked, I agree. But I don't think this is a byproduct of "hyper-capitalism" or whatever. It is the employment friction and difficulty holding a job that gives employers a huge advantage when it comes to having discretion about who to hire and fire. I think in part it is because we have departed from Henry Ford's philosophy of a 40-hour work week, and good pay for employees. Pay the workers so they can afford the products, and give them time to use the products! Yes, some employers (nightmares come to mind) have a tendency to use fear and intimidation as their chief weapons of choice against employees. It's cheaper for them to overwork employees, underpay, and use temps. if the company is a non-family enterprise, that has a corporate charter which regards employees simply as a cost and a component of production.

 

In an economy without regulation or interest-rate manipulation, employment would remain full at all times. There is always work to be done, and always people who are willing to trade a portion of their free time for dollars. Involuntary unemployment is not a natural part of a free market because demand is unlimited, and credit is never naturally so monopolized by one entity (the federal government).

Unregulated.. well that's simply hoping companies are run by smart, emotionally intelligent people. Employment might remain full if the company regards employees as family, not just as components. Also, if markets are overseen by independent bodies.

And many companies do, but often have a harder time of it, since those who don't cut their costs, and shift the cost burdens to everyone else, or disregard the needs of their fellow human beings on the planet.

The idea that markets are all, is limiting on human potential. But for their part in our world, assuming demand is unlimited might be part of the problem as well. When markets get rigged, and bubbles burst, then there is this emotional component to deal with - fear. People clam up, and won't spend, and that sets off a cycle of unemployment. Demand drops, more workers loose jobs, and then less spend, so it cycles for a while..

I think credit shouldn't be monopolized by the government as well Jay, but I still very much believe in government oversight - to curb market manipulators, and to check the irrationalities that happen in markets.

 

I think in a free market, unemployment would only be frictional (below 2%) and all employment would be voluntary and rewarding for everyone involved. Prices would be held low so quality of life is maximized for the lower and middle classes. Saving would be easy and nobody would NEED to work long hours in a grueling environment. This type of relationship isn't beneficial to the employer or employee. Bosses would be friendly and accommodating because finding other work would be a snap for a laborer in a vibrant, entrepreneurial free market.

Perhaps in an ideal world, this would work, but in the world I see, the general trend is for the John Pierpont Morgans to control with an iron rod if left unchecked, because they would monopolize things quickly, and bribe officials to prevent all corrective measures from happening. If there was a real market, in a Utopian world it might work - but as things stand, the need for honest government and checks are essential. Getting that government to function correctly once again is the challenge I see, and while impossible to achieve perfection, I'm aiming mainly for correction. ;)

[Tnspieler1012]

what officials are there to bribe in an anarchist society?

[HorrificAttack]

This is hilarious, anarchism is an idealistic fantasy.

[Saffire]

This is hilarious, anarchism is an idealistic fantasy.

 

Certainly it appears idealistic to a statist, because it doesn't have the same framework of bureaucratic support structure that a government has. So if a statist ever has a question or theory about what might happen in a particular situation, he can simply revert to the omnisufficient answer: "The government will take care of it."

 

But this is weakness. It's like saying "Oh well God did it." when you should be asking scientific questions.

 

The theory that there is a vicious cycle of depressions (where credit contracts, then people stop spending, then companies lay off workers, then people spend even less, then credit contracts more, etc) is something Keynes dreamed up. But it has no bearing on reality. Because in society, there is always demand for goods and services.

 

If we are all dropped naked and stupid in a jungle, with no inherent reason to demand things, eventually a market economy will evolve from our voluntary interactions. It's not a vicious cycle, it's virtuous cycle. If you are useful in some way, there is someone who has use for you.

 

It strikes me as odd that people who are often great supporters of (and understand) Darwinian evolution can't see the parallel in free market economics. Only in a free market, people aren't killed or starved to death - it is much more tame than statists would have you believe.

 

Government is a friction, a drain on a voluntary market. It is the source of all poverty.