Left - Right : Epiphany

[entruil]

Originally Posted by Nibblewitz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Good governments should be large enough to safeguard its citizenship from the greed of capitalism.

Hi.

This is from RP on Feb.26,2002.

"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven’t had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It’s not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism! "

Peace

[Nibblewitz]

Aspects of unfettered capitalism exist in society and have terrible implications. Speculative investment and the destruction of international trade barriers come to mind.

P.S. I don't want to have a philosophical debate about Marxism; it is an interesting theory and has some explanatory power, but I have no intention of shoving it down anyone's throats. It is a classical concept and worth mentioning when discussing the intersections of economics and politics.

[entruil]

Originally Posted by Nibblewitz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

intersections of economics and politics.

I just want to leave this here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by fash [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Interesting, but does this do anything besides save you some time in a democratic government? When they want more gibs, they'll burn down cities. When they want to vote, they'll martyr for publicity and plant bombs.

No it just removes the power of bureaucrats to grant favors. Its just a thought I mull over from time to time. I just find it kind of self defeating that we have these "citizen" leaders. No term limits combined with the "right" to pursue your own interest as a politician is kind of bullshit. Civil service/politicians should have to enter into a system they can not rig or profit from. This would draw only those with a genuine interest in efficient and just operation of that system toward it to begin with. In Plato's version children are tested to see if they fit into this class and are then raised by a family belonging to that class so as to instill those values.

If we have to use democratic methods the way you avoid "gibs" and riots is you use a timocratic method to decide voter eligibility. Then you create a way for those who desire to do so to progress into the timocracy based on some system of merit. Heinlein the sci-fi author and libertarian had proposed limiting citizenship and its rights to only those who served in the military. So something along those lines could be adopted.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Nibblewitz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Aspects of unfettered capitalism exist in society and have terrible implications. Speculative investment and the destruction of international trade barriers come to mind.

P.S. I don't want to have a philosophical debate about Marxism; it is an interesting theory and has some explanatory power, but I have no intention of shoving it down anyone's throats. It is a classical concept and worth mentioning when discussing the intersections of economics and politics.

Yeah, I'm not arguing for the virtues of unfettered capitalism. I am just identifying the danger of large government in such an environment. You contend government should restrain capitalism, which I agree with. The danger that I see is when you have a large government that does not do that, which is necessarily the case such an environment. Put another way, restraining capitalism moves things to the left, so you no longer have a large government on the right.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh, so corporations are able to purchase the same amounts of power from the City of Butte, Montana as they can from United States of America? Why don't they just work with Butte then? Fewer people to deal with.

I read your post wrong when I wrote the Nibs. You said "whether purchase through government or not," so this analogy would not apply.

My last post still applies though^^

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No it just removes the power of bureaucrats to grant favors. Its just a thought I mull over from time to time. I just find it kind of self defeating that we have these "citizen" leaders. No term limits combined with the "right" to pursue your own interest as a politician is kind of bullshit. Civil service/politicians should have to enter into a system they can not rig or profit from. This would draw only those with a genuine interest in efficient and just operation of that system toward it to begin with. In Plato's version children are tested to see if they fit into this class and are then raised by a family belonging to that class so as to instill those values.

If we have to use democratic methods the way you avoid "gibs" and riots is you use a timocratic method to decide voter eligibility. Then you create a way for those who desire to do so to progress into the timocracy based on some system of merit. Heinlein the sci-fi author and libertarian had proposed limiting citizenship and its rights to only those who served in the military. So something along those lines could be adopted.

The government model in Starship Troopers is an interesting format that I lean towards. Civil service for civil rewards in some fashion gives an incentive that is currently lacking in most governments. Also, I think term limits in all elected offices and courts, even appointed positions, would have a net positive on how government functions within the US.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The government model in Starship Troopers is an interesting format that I lean towards. Civil service for civil rewards in some fashion gives an incentive that is currently lacking in most governments. Also, I think term limits in all elected offices and courts, even appointed positions, would have a net positive on how government functions within the US.

I have always been on the fence with term limits and change my mind on the issue often. The negative associated with term limits is it forces you to discard people when they are doing a good job. I have been thinking lately a better system is no limits but have regular reviews or some such in which the power can be revoked. Its supposed to sort of work like this currently in the US but the problem is we have cliques of politicians who seldom enforce these options against their own buddies therefore it should fall to an outside body or be up for a kind of general vote of confidence. Which is similar to just having an election. The problem is the voters dont want to run the country or keep up with how the politicians are doing. Thus the auxiliary class idea again rears its head.

[Nibblewitz]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The government model in Starship Troopers is an interesting format that I lean towards. Civil service for civil rewards in some fashion gives an incentive that is currently lacking in most governments. Also, I think term limits in all elected offices and courts, even appointed positions, would have a net positive on how government functions within the US.

You make a good point, and I think civil motivation is a major role of government. I would hate to see the world continue in its feudal system of wage-slavery, and I don't see the free market producing an advocate for human advancement. Our current systems have fostered personal gain over collective gain, and a freer market would do the same with more intensity.

[entruil]

Originally Posted by Nibblewitz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You make a good point, and I think civil motivation is a major role of government. I would hate to see the world continue in its feudal system of wage-slavery, and I don't see the free market producing an advocate for human advancement. Our current systems have fostered personal gain over collective gain, and a freer market would do the same with more intensity.

guess i dont get the premise... all i hear is how freedom is bad because fake freedom isn't working... sry friends