Political Assessment

[BioMike]

Hehe. That's only a 2 party system you describe (we have more parties). How about this one:

Democracy is a dictatorship of the people.

I think taxes aren't a bad thing, as long as they are spend again in a sane and good fashion, so that the whole society has profit of it.

Everybody with half a brains know that the elderly had plundered the young with social security.

That is the fatal flaw of democracy. Nobody have the discipline to simply not vote themselves money.

Money isn't everything... you want good roads, public healthcare, good education, subsidy to start your own company, grants to do research (generate knowledge), good/reliable public transport, etc., etc.? That's worth something, right?

I am willing to bet none of that would of be possible without the creation of currency. That's the most oxymoronic phrase I have ever read.

My point is that money isn't a goal (for self-enrichment), but a thing to achieve the things I mentioned (to improve society as a whole you have to contribute to it and participate in it).

[1714813852]

1714813852

[1714813852]

1714813852

[1714813852]

1714813852

[Immanuel]

Hehe. That's only a 2 party system you describe (we have more parties). How about this one:

Democracy is a dictatorship of the people.

I think taxes aren't a bad thing, as long as they are spend again in a sane and good fashion, so that the whole society has profit of it.

Everybody with half a brains know that the elderly had plundered the young with social security.

That is the fatal flaw of democracy. Nobody have the discipline to simply not vote themselves money.

Money isn't everything... you want good roads, public healthcare, good education, subsidy to start your own company, grants to do research (generate knowledge), good/reliable public transport, etc., etc.? That's worth something, right?

I am willing to bet none of that would of be possible without the creation of currency. That's the most oxymoronic phrase I have ever read.

My point is that money isn't a goal (for self-enrichment), but a thing to achieve the things I mentioned (to improve society as a whole you have to contribute to it and participate in it).

I see. My apologies.

[BioMike]

Here in Europe people are not so distrusting towards their governments as compared to the USA, because if you don't like how the current government is performing you choose a different party (or start your own, yes, that IS possible). Also ties with governmental agencies are short and the parliament can intervene if they aren't working as they should be.

[kiba]

Money isn't everything... you want good roads, public healthcare, good education, subsidy to start your own company, grants to do research (generate knowledge), good/reliable public transport, etc., etc.? That's worth something, right?

All of which are provided by plunder of individuals and are of... questionable quality.

The US have lot of public roads. GAZILLION miles of roads. Our infrastructure are falling apart because we can't maintain the GAZILLION or roads. Plus we get car accidents and traffic congestion.

We get snotty city planners that think it is fine to zone area into RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, and INDUSTRY as if it were sim city. The result is suburban sprawl.

Incentives matter, BioMike. A lot.

[BioMike]

We have the same problems (car accidents and traffic jams), just not so many roads. The problem seems to me 2 fold:

1) Not enough money goes to maintaining the roads or to many roads (the usa is too small to maintain all those roads).
2) Incompetent people doing the planning (and probably paid to much for their work).

Here the government has to go through some levels of government layers before they can actually put down the road.
This takes a lot of time to get these things done, not only the different layers of government can be problematic, they
also have to take care of activist groups, buying up the land where they want to put down the road (if the owner refuses
it has to go through court). Because it is so difficult to put down a road, other ways to solve the problems (often traffic jams)
are often much easier. Some road projects can take up more than 10 years before they can start constructing (if it isn't cancelled
by then).

One question though, do you pay tax for owning and using a car in the USA? How heavy is fuel taxed? (Looking at wikipedia we have the highest fuel tax (50 - 60%), USA hardly any tax). Which comes down to the point what I'm trying to make, everybody wants good quality roads, but doesn't want to pay for it, result: nothing happens and roads start to deteriorate, increasing costs to fix them even more.

[Immanuel]

Not only is the road system problematic under the statist control, in order to make it supposedly effective the fed has to steal even more of my labor. You say there is demand for good quality roads? Then why not let the free market handle it in the first place. Problem solved and the government doesn't have to money from me at gun point. :O Also, the government has no incentive to be efficient due to the lack of profit incentive. Road costs could be a lot cheaper under a private system.

Private roads have been made the past, they can still exist today. Businesses want customers to access their storefronts easily so naturally roads will come about. Scew the government monopoly. Give the power to the people.

[JohnDoe]

In your ideal society you would soon realize how ineffective it is to sollicitate your direct neighbors for security.  You'll realise it's better to hire some people just for this task.  They would get some special training and, unlike your neighbors, they would be ready to act 24/7.  You'll give them some guns and a uniform.  And finally you'll call them "police".   Only difference with the current police, would be that your police would be a private organisation, founded by your neighborhood, in your neigborhood's interest.

Sure, I was thinking how poorer people would fend off attacks. Richer communities and businesses would get trained guards and fit them helmets, kevlar vests and M16s to keep high the ratio of cost from stealing vs profit from stealing.

How can your ideal society possibly be stable though? What's preventing these people from forming coercive bodies that spawned the governments we have today?

However, another group decides to create a competing police force and they start killing and harming your police force's clientele, thereby putting them at a risk of failure. How do you deal with this situation? You see, this is why I don't like Anarcho-Capitalism either.

It is in the best interest of everyone that no single group rises in power above the rest so I think that people would band together against this single entity and take it out before it rises too much in power and becomes a new government. In your example, everyone would see the danger in letting the rogue police force get away with killing those people so the defending police company would band itself with other companies and destroy the rogue one. Basically by initiating aggression without a legit reason you would be painting a big red target on your back.

[kiba]

1) Not enough money goes to maintaining the roads or to many roads (the usa is too small to maintain all those roads).
2) Incompetent people doing the planning (and probably paid to much for their work).

No, no, no. It's not about that even.

The government have no incentives to provide quality roads and no incentive to hire competent planners.

[tyler]

How I feel about democracy:

http://imgur.com/nh2Qy.jpg

I have the same tattoo on my chest

[mikegogulski]

You forgot "Agorist" btw.

i could argue left-libertarian and agorist are the same. well rather agorist is a subset of left-libertarian

There's certainly a lot of overlap, but I look at the difference like this: Left-libertarianism is a bunch of values which seek expression. Agorism is a revolutionary strategy for realizing at least some of those values.

[mikegogulski]

you want good roads, public healthcare, good education, subsidy to start your own company, grants to do research (generate knowledge), good/reliable public transport, etc., etc.? That's worth something, right?

They are worth *something*. Different somethings, to different people. The question is who sets the value? The state model dictates that the state -- and, by extension, whatever groups control the state, most often not really a democratic electorate -- decides the relative values of each, and what items shall be valued and what not.

I personally assign zero value to a "subsidy" to start one's own company, if that means a state subsidy. Why should someone establishing a "company" to employ multiple people be privileged over sole traders?

Someone with their own car might assign a high value to good roads, but zero value to public transport. Why should people who never ride the bus pay for the bus?

Neither of those preferences can be respected or satisfied under a one-size-fits-all state system of provision via taxation. And taxation is theft, backed up by the threat of murder.

[BioMike]

Someone with their own car might assign a high value to good roads, but zero value to public transport. Why should people who never ride the bus pay for the bus?

What would happen if there was NO public transport at all? The current amount of traffic jams would be nothing, costs for maintaining your good roads would go up (more traffic on the road), fuel prices would go up (more demand for fuel). While not direct, you will still be profiting from the fact that people make use of public transport.
My bus this morning was transporting about average 60 people, most cars that I see in the morning have only 1 person in there. Let's say that this one bus would save 50 cars on the road (all going in the same direction)... and this is only one bus.

[MoonShadow]

Someone with their own car might assign a high value to good roads, but zero value to public transport. Why should people who never ride the bus pay for the bus?

What would happen if there was NO public transport at all?

http://www.flinc.org/world/pages/product

[kiba]

What would happen if there was NO public transport at all? The current amount of traffic jams would be nothing, costs for maintaining your good roads would go up (more traffic on the road), fuel prices would go up (more demand for fuel). While not direct, you will still be profiting from the fact that people make use of public transport.
My bus this morning was transporting about average 60 people, most cars that I see in the morning have only 1 person in there. Let's say that this one bus would save 50 cars on the road (all going in the same direction)... and this is only one bus.

Why would public transport disappear?

A bus is more fuel efficient and should benefit from the economy of scale.

There would be more train tracks. Trucks are used for local transport of material instead.

[em3rgentOrdr]

I'm an anarcho-capitalist left-Rothbardian, which so I also consider myself a left-libertarian.

[jgarzik]

A bus is more fuel efficient and should benefit from the economy of scale.

There would be more train tracks. Trucks are used for local transport of material instead.

This depends largely on population density and geography.  A bus or subway train are incredibly wasteful and inefficient, if ridership is low.

[MoonShadow]

A bus is more fuel efficient and should benefit from the economy of scale.

There would be more train tracks. Trucks are used for local transport of material instead.

This depends largely on population density and geography. 

It should, and it would in the absence of the massive federal subsidies that the US government provides to public transit.  Taxes paid for most major commercial airports and nearly all of their security.  Without those roundabout forms of subsidies, aviation would still be a rare mode of travel as it was in the 1930's.  Pam Am got it's start as a covert pacific theater operation prior to WWII, using military pilots flying commercial aircraft as cover for the movement of US personnel & air recon of the Japanese fleets.  The US airline industry is to the US military today what the interstate system was to prior generations, and what the roads were to the Roman Empire; it provides cover of movement with commerce while providing a means of rapid deployment in the event of invasion.

[da2ce7]

I'm a Voluntaryist.  But I'll vote 'Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian' as it is close enough for me.

Being pragmatic, I do prefer the term 'Laissez-faire Capitalism' to describe my economic views.
I think that this poll illustrates, again, the importance to separate moral and economic labels.

Voluntaryism is a moral code, it just so-happens that 'Laissez-faire Capitalism' is the only rational economic model for a society of voluntarists!

[FreeMoney]

I'm a Voluntaryist.  But I'll vote 'Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian' as it is close enough for me.

Being pragmatic, I do prefer the term 'Laissez-faire Capitalism' to describe my economic views.
I think that this poll illustrates, again, the importance to separate moral and economic labels.

Voluntaryism is a moral code, it just so-happens that 'Laissez-faire Capitalism' is the only rational economic model for a society of voluntarists!

I like voluntaryist too.

[Anonymous]

The road system is easy. Without government we may already have personal flying cars like the jetsons. Then all the roads could be used for something more productive.

You see the roads the government has built but you dont see the opportunity cost of all the policies that maintains the monopoly.

The seen and the unseen is something you always have to weigh up when dealing with these issues.