31 votes

Let's discuss politics

Broad subject matter, I know. I'm just curious on what the political views in this small community are.
So, to get things started, what political ideology (if any) do you believe in?

160 comments

  1. [10]
    clerical_terrors
    Link
    I'm what's probably best described as a Social Democrat. I believe in a high degree of civil liberty and responsibility and a decent degree of government intervention in essential or peculiar...

    I'm what's probably best described as a Social Democrat. I believe in a high degree of civil liberty and responsibility and a decent degree of government intervention in essential or peculiar industries like healthcare, water/electricity etc. but still support a free market for most other goods and services. I believe capitalism can create incentive to improve living conditions and innovate because of the possibility of financial reward, but that the market should be restricted in places to safeguard the well being of all people. Of course what that means in practice is highly contentious.

    In truth I'm not half as informed as I should be to make broad political statements, but social democracy is what I tend towards and what I consider both feasible and ethically responsible.

    44 votes
    1. [8]
      SaucedButLeaking
      Link Parent
      Back in college, I got all sorts of fired up when we started studying Marxism and I thought I was a socialist. Now I find myself looking at all of the attempts to implement socialism and how the...

      Back in college, I got all sorts of fired up when we started studying Marxism and I thought I was a socialist. Now I find myself looking at all of the attempts to implement socialism and how the people responsible for doing so tend to swing over to authoritarianism real quick-like once they realize how much power they have. Then I watched the Sanders campaign start pitching socialist policies within the context of the current American system, and I found myself resonating as a social democrat. I believe now that egalitarian policy can serve as a pressure valve on capitalist expansion and redirect some of the upward momentum of capital back into the base, strengthening the whole system. It's a huge, uphill battle for single-payer healthcare (let alone something like a UBI), but I believe that programs like those are the only way to put the brakes on the trend toward a new aristocracy that America seems to be following

      18 votes
      1. [3]
        clerical_terrors
        Link Parent
        I think the very pertinent takeaway from Socialist lines of thought is that there is no real moral dimension to capitalism. Whoever owns capital is the winner in that system, whoever passes up the...

        I think the very pertinent takeaway from Socialist lines of thought is that there is no real moral dimension to capitalism. Whoever owns capital is the winner in that system, whoever passes up the opportunity to own capital in order to act in a moral way will lose to somebody who doesn't.

        15 votes
        1. Boudicasfolly
          Link Parent
          This is so true. I'm an attorney and we're stereotyped as having no ethics or morals. But man, we're all shocked at how shady and unethical business people behave and it almost seems like they...

          there is no real moral dimension to capitalism.

          This is so true. I'm an attorney and we're stereotyped as having no ethics or morals. But man, we're all shocked at how shady and unethical business people behave and it almost seems like they have to act that way. Whenever we get a client who isn't a terrible human being, they are being screwed by other people who are. Capitalism has no morality at all. Pure winners and losers based on accumulation by whatever means possible. It's truly terrifying.

          15 votes
        2. SaucedButLeaking
          Link Parent
          Exactly. And I am of the belief that systems should be in place to make up for the (a|im)morality of a capitalist system.

          Exactly. And I am of the belief that systems should be in place to make up for the (a|im)morality of a capitalist system.

          2 votes
      2. [4]
        Savannajeff
        Link Parent
        But Sanders wasn't pitching socialist ideas, he was pitching social-democrat ideas. I mean, none of his ideas involved the complete destruction of capitalism, to replace it with worker control...

        But Sanders wasn't pitching socialist ideas, he was pitching social-democrat ideas. I mean, none of his ideas involved the complete destruction of capitalism, to replace it with worker control over the means of production.

        5 votes
    2. Zelos
      Link Parent
      You sound pretty much where I'm at. Philisophically I'm a libertarian/egalitarian humanist. But politically it places me somewhere on the liberal side of the parties. But I'm never actually that...

      You sound pretty much where I'm at. Philisophically I'm a libertarian/egalitarian humanist. But politically it places me somewhere on the liberal side of the parties. But I'm never actually that happy with it. And I'm not educated enough to really do things about it myself

      6 votes
  2. [43]
    palpitations
    (edited )
    Link
    I've personally always found the Political Compass much more useful than generic labels, especially when the definition of left vs. right can vary so dramatically between nations. Rather than...

    I've personally always found the Political Compass much more useful than generic labels, especially when the definition of left vs. right can vary so dramatically between nations. Rather than simply attempting to place oneself on the left vs. right line, it breaks things out into economic and social scales. It also helps reduce the ambiguity that is always inherent in language, which I'm a big fan of.

    As for myself, I consider myself a "Social Democrat" if we want to stick with labels, and am placed pretty firmly the quadrant the Compass refers to as "left libertarian" -- I have broadly left-wing economic views, and am what I would call socially progressive.

    If anyone else is interested in seeing where they lie on the Compass, I'd be curious to see how we all stack up. I've started a crowd chart here (edit: updated with results as of 2018-06-03 00:45 UTC) -- please feel free to add yourself and throw a link up as a reply.

    Edit: Given the fact that there seems to be a pretty strong preference for the bottom left, myself included, I wonder what this means for the diversity of opinions here. I posted my thoughts on this here, but that thread is pretty dead... I'd love to see some more thoughts on what this could mean for Tildes.

    25 votes
    1. [15]
      guamisc
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      I come out way more libertarian on the chart than I vote in real life. It would be nice if the world would work openly and voluntarily, but it doesn't. At least socialism has actually run a...

      I come out way more libertarian on the chart than I vote in real life.

      It would be nice if the world would work openly and voluntarily, but it doesn't. At least socialism has actually run a country even if it later collapsed. Extreme libertarianism and voluntary everything hasn't been even able to do that.

      Humans are terrible at being informed enough to make good decisions all of the time.

      E: https://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart2?spots=-6.88%7C-7.9%7Cpalpitations,-6.25%7C-6.36%7Cguamisc

      10 votes
      1. [12]
        CALICO
        Link Parent
        It's been a couple years since I've taken this, I was about where you were last time. And then there were three.

        It's been a couple years since I've taken this, I was about where you were last time.
        And then there were three.

        5 votes
        1. [12]
          Comment deleted by author
          Link Parent
          1. [11]
            biscuits
            Link Parent
            Yeah not much variation so far lol EDIT: Fixing link

            Yeah not much variation so far lol

            EDIT: Fixing link

            4 votes
            1. [9]
              SaucedButLeaking
              Link Parent
              Nope, no patterns here
              5 votes
              1. [7]
                ZaphodBeebblebrox
                Link Parent
                Hey, I added some variety
                4 votes
                1. [5]
                  RobotRaven
                  Link Parent
                  Sorry, can't say I did the same.
                  2 votes
                  1. [4]
                    BuckeyeSundae
                    Link Parent
                    Zaphod is actually the closest to me this time according to this. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I suppose I need a towel.

                    Zaphod is actually the closest to me this time according to this.

                    I'm not sure how I feel about that. I suppose I need a towel.

                    3 votes
                    1. [3]
                      ZaphodBeebblebrox
                      Link Parent
                      There are a few people who are closer to you now. I find it interesting that I am the only person so far who believes in conservative economic policies, though that may just be because people like...

                      There are a few people who are closer to you now. I find it interesting that I am the only person so far who believes in conservative economic policies, though that may just be because people like @Dr_Douchebag and @go1dfish have not added themselves yet. I guess the combination of invite only and Demios' belief that we should not be tolerant to literally everything kept away a large part of the people who find themselves in bottom right corner.

                      3 votes
                      1. [2]
                        BuckeyeSundae
                        Link Parent
                        Well, if Political Compass' center is actually a real center, you're as much an economic centrist as I am just on the other side, and you're just about exactly as anti-authoritarian. But yeah, I...

                        Well, if Political Compass' center is actually a real center, you're as much an economic centrist as I am just on the other side, and you're just about exactly as anti-authoritarian. But yeah, I didn't see @Gatoraider's or @Jaker420's results when I wrote this comment (especially since Gator is right on top of me).

                        I will sometimes call myself a small-l liberal rather than the big L liberal that typically makes up most of the democratic party. I'm definitely at odds with a lot of "my compatriots" on a number of substantial issues (some of which I made plain elsewhere in this thread), and if the Republican party made a genuine attempt for my vote, they might even get it. I say this even after having organized for the Democratic party. When I've decided to be cheeky, sometimes I'll even try to reclaim the term liberal for its more global reputation for economic centrism and suspicion of communism, rather than its legacy in the US of having formed a coalition with socialists, progressives, and radicals of many other stripes.

                        Simply put: radicals exhaust me.

                        3 votes
                        1. ZaphodBeebblebrox
                          Link Parent
                          I would say I'm a libertarian in the more classical sense of the term, but I am with you on the small rather than big L. I do not agree with the anarchists at all, governments make sense. I mean...

                          I would say I'm a libertarian in the more classical sense of the term, but I am with you on the small rather than big L. I do not agree with the anarchists at all, governments make sense. I mean it more in the sense of socially liberal, economically conservative. Though, at least according to that chart, I am rather close to the center.

                          As far as not seeing the other people goes, I believe they were not added to the chart when you posted your previous comment.

                          1 vote
                2. Jaker420
                  Link Parent
                  Haha hey zaph I recognize you from somewhere else I lurk around 😜 Also I dont feel as different sense your scores way more unique then the rest

                  Haha hey zaph I recognize you from somewhere else I lurk around 😜

                  Also I dont feel as different sense your scores way more unique then the rest

      2. palpitations
        Link Parent
        It's worth noting in this case that the libertarian scale is related only to social issues, and is the opposite of authoritarian. A "libertarian" in the typical sense would thus fall in the lower...

        It's worth noting in this case that the libertarian scale is related only to social issues, and is the opposite of authoritarian. A "libertarian" in the typical sense would thus fall in the lower right quadrant.

        2 votes
      3. frank
        Link Parent
        I tried to fill the survey based less on where I truly feel about some things, but where I feel human nature forces the issue.

        I tried to fill the survey based less on where I truly feel about some things, but where I feel human nature forces the issue.

    2. [3]
      crius
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      I was trying it but I really cannot know what to answer here: I mean... Yes. But I don't support the idea anyway. I'm not sure what the quiz is asking me here. If I agree with the statement or...

      I was trying it but I really cannot know what to answer here:

      A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

      I mean... Yes. But I don't support the idea anyway. I'm not sure what the quiz is asking me here. If I agree with the statement or with that kind of society.

      Anyway:

      Economic Left/Right: -5.5
      Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05

      Much more libertarian than I thought, to be honest.

      2 votes
      1. [2]
        palpitations
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        Yeah, that one threw me as well... And apparently a lot of other people, it's actually one of the things they address in the FAQ:

        Yeah, that one threw me as well... And apparently a lot of other people, it's actually one of the things they address in the FAQ:

        It’s true that a one party state has a significant advantage; even so I wouldn’t support it. So how can I respond?
        From classical Greece onwards, discussion and, inevitably, argument, has been viewed by democrats as essential for considering all viewpoints and consequently reaching the best informed and most representative decision. For such people, the replacement of polemics with speedy dictates would definitely not be seen as any sort of “significant advantage” or “progress”.

        4 votes
        1. crius
          Link Parent
          Well, now that I see the reasoning I can only agree. Lack of discussion definitely don't bring forward anything progress (see echo chamber). I didn't think about that.

          Well, now that I see the reasoning I can only agree. Lack of discussion definitely don't bring forward anything progress (see echo chamber).
          I didn't think about that.

          1 vote
    3. Pilgrim
      Link Parent
      The Political Compass is pretty cool. Here are my #'s Economic Left/Right: -3.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.97

      The Political Compass is pretty cool. Here are my #'s

      Economic Left/Right: -3.13
      Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.97

      1 vote
    4. [4]
      Jaker420
      Link Parent
      Added mine 😁 that was interesting I kinda agree with where they put me tbh. Woah after looking at it after everyone added themselves I feel like an outcast lmao

      Added mine 😁 that was interesting I kinda agree with where they put me tbh.

      Woah after looking at it after everyone added themselves I feel like an outcast lmao

      1 vote
      1. [3]
        palpitations
        Link Parent
        To add yourself where everyone else can see, you'll need to post the link you get after adding yourself... Sadly there's not a way to just add yourself and have it update automatically. Or just...

        To add yourself where everyone else can see, you'll need to post the link you get after adding yourself... Sadly there's not a way to just add yourself and have it update automatically. Or just post your results and I'll edit it into the one in my original comment.

          1. palpitations
            Link Parent
            No worries! I updated the link in my post to include you.

            No worries! I updated the link in my post to include you.

            2 votes
    5. thesteve
      Link Parent
      I added myself as well Economic Left/Right: -6.5 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36

      I added myself as well

      Economic Left/Right: -6.5
      Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36

      1 vote
    6. ELFAHBEHT_SOOP
      Link Parent
      I took the test! Economic Left/Right: -4.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.67 I added myself to the group

      I took the test!

      Economic Left/Right: -4.13
      Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.67

      I added myself to the group

      1 vote
    7. Cloudbuster
      Link Parent
      I added myself in Economic -.25, and Social: -6.78. Looks like im a bit of an outlier haha

      I added myself in Economic -.25, and Social: -6.78. Looks like im a bit of an outlier haha

      1 vote
    8. [7]
      Tardigrade
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      We have quite the skew to the left and bottom it seems. Edit: Done the test now. Over the years I've sat in a similar position but have slightly shifted down and slightly right from ealier years...

      We have quite the skew to the left and bottom it seems.

      Edit: Done the test now. Over the years I've sat in a similar position but have slightly shifted down and slightly right from ealier years but I won't be suprised if it changes more as I get older.
      Economic Left/Right: -6.5
      Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.82

      1. [6]
        ZaphodBeebblebrox
        Link Parent
        The to the bottom part is definitely expected. ~ is mainly heavy internet users, who almost all skew to the left on social issues. The economic side of the scale is a bit less expected, I honestly...

        The to the bottom part is definitely expected. ~ is mainly heavy internet users, who almost all skew to the left on social issues. The economic side of the scale is a bit less expected, I honestly would have expected more small government people. Does anyone have an good explanation for that?

        3 votes
        1. [2]
          UrsulaMajor
          Link Parent
          the chart doesn't measure how large you think the government should be. the bottom left of the chart is Anarchy, who do not believe there should even be a government as we see it. although, you'll...

          I honestly would have expected more small government people

          the chart doesn't measure how large you think the government should be. the bottom left of the chart is Anarchy, who do not believe there should even be a government as we see it.

          although, you'll often find they make a distinction between a State and a Government

          1 vote
          1. ZaphodBeebblebrox
            Link Parent
            The right left part of the scale is economic right and economic left. The far left is things like commuinism, where the government controls everything, and the far right is people who are...

            The right left part of the scale is economic right and economic left. The far left is things like commuinism, where the government controls everything, and the far right is people who are anti-government for fiscal reasons.

        2. [3]
          Tardigrade
          Link Parent
          I'm surpised there's so many people on that side of it. Can you have small government but also have social health care and such?

          I'm surpised there's so many people on that side of it. Can you have small government but also have social health care and such?

          1. [2]
            ZaphodBeebblebrox
            Link Parent
            I may have phrased what I meant poorly. There are some areas where the U.S. government acts where I believe there should be private sector work. However, even in areas such as healthcare, where I...

            I may have phrased what I meant poorly. There are some areas where the U.S. government acts where I believe there should be private sector work. However, even in areas such as healthcare, where I believe there is a reasonable argument the U.S. government should do more, the bureaucracy is horribly bloated. The government has no incentive to run efficiently, so it wastes huge amounts of resources. This bureaucracy needs to shrink into something that is more efficient and less costly (but this will likely never happen, because that would mean getting rid of jobs).

            1 vote
            1. Tardigrade
              Link Parent
              I get what you mean now. I guess either you build a new society from the ground up to remove them easily or if we had far better social safety nets due to automation and no one having jobs anyway...

              I get what you mean now. I guess either you build a new society from the ground up to remove them easily or if we had far better social safety nets due to automation and no one having jobs anyway it would be possible? I know those are two really out there examples but I can see another situation where they cut loads of jobs at once.

  3. [5]
    halwoods
    Link
    I'll get things started, I'm currently in my mid thirties and have had periods where I have lost faith in politics alltogether. Lately I have become interested in the ideology of Green Politics....

    I'll get things started, I'm currently in my mid thirties and have had periods where I have lost faith in politics alltogether. Lately I have become interested in the ideology of Green Politics. Which basicly revolves around 4 pillars: Ecological wisdom,Social justice,Grassroots democracy,Nonviolence .

    My main reasoning being that one of the largest challenges we face as a species is that we are wrecking the very environment we are dependent on, and it's critical that we break this destructive cycle we seem to be stuck in. Although I do not believe green politics necessarily have all the answers for this, I believe it might be a good place to start.

    10 votes
    1. [4]
      MindsRedMill
      Link Parent
      I have green sympathies (family includes several professional environmentalists) but i am wary of Green political parties, as i generally find single issue politics not massively effective. Better...

      I have green sympathies (family includes several professional environmentalists) but i am wary of Green political parties, as i generally find single issue politics not massively effective. Better as pressure groups than parties. So in the UK, i will vote green locally (council elections) where the green party are effective, but not nationally. If we switched to PR they'd have a better chance of getting my vote, as a green party as part of an alliance makes a lot more sense. Then they are the voice of green issues within a broadly social justice orientated alliance than just a 'tree hugging part' which is the danger.

      7 votes
      1. [2]
        halwoods
        Link Parent
        I agree that this seems to be the challenge the green parties are facing, that they are reduced to being a single issue party. However that isn't really the idea behind the foundation of the...

        I agree that this seems to be the challenge the green parties are facing, that they are reduced to being a single issue party. However that isn't really the idea behind the foundation of the ideology if I'm interpreting it correctly. When the greens are doing policy making they are (or atleast should) consider the environmental impact, however they would also have to regard their other pillars.

        I belive the problem has a lot to do with translating the broader vision of a "green world", where we take care of eachother and the environment to actual politcal policies that will push us nearer the goal of our "perfect society".

        It's also a very idealistic ideology and might not be plausible to implement, so I agree that they might serve better as a pressure group than a party at the moment.

        In time it might mature enough, so that it could translate the vision into actual working politics.

        1 vote
        1. MindsRedMill
          Link Parent
          Green is a good colour but it gets reduced to 'tree hugger' and no kidding locally here, the green councillors spend a lot of time talking about trees... I'd rebrand so something about...

          Green is a good colour but it gets reduced to 'tree hugger' and no kidding locally here, the green councillors spend a lot of time talking about trees...

          I'd rebrand so something about sustainability, or the future somehow. because the argument is that unless one pays attention to environmental issues, the future is bleak for all of us. Green politics also has to explicitly avoid being seen as backwards, and having some sort of naturalistic agricultural idyl as its goal. Its not pastural utopianism.

          I think a focus on the future and technology, as a way to be positively transformative, would help. Push green energy and do it because you think ti is right but also focus on why it is economically advantageous. Its a lot more compelling for a megacorp.

          1 vote
      2. szferi
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        I think It would make a big favour for the green movement if they figure out what is the optimal economic policy for nearly zero growth environment we are facing. That would make them less of the...

        I think It would make a big favour for the green movement if they figure out what is the optimal economic policy for nearly zero growth environment we are facing. That would make them less of the single issue parties and more like a viable alternative.

  4. [27]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. [23]
      eosha
      Link Parent
      So leaving aside the philosophical end of things, how would such a system work society-wide? How would (or should) one provide national defense, or law enforcement, or infrastructure, or public...

      So leaving aside the philosophical end of things, how would such a system work society-wide? How would (or should) one provide national defense, or law enforcement, or infrastructure, or public health, or education?

      I don't disagree with the philosophical underpinnings of what you're saying, but I don't believe that it's workable (or at the very least it's not competitively efficient).

      7 votes
      1. [23]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. [22]
          eosha
          Link Parent
          I understand that "let the market do it" is one of the fundamentals, but I don't think that's viable. Take national defense. People aren't going to volunteer enough funds to build/train/sustain a...

          I understand that "let the market do it" is one of the fundamentals, but I don't think that's viable. Take national defense. People aren't going to volunteer enough funds to build/train/sustain a military until there's an immediate threat, at which point it's far too late to start designing a fighter jet.

          13 votes
          1. [12]
            guamisc
            Link Parent
            This is literally the reason the Articles of Confederation were scrapped. A weak or non-existent federal government without the ability to tax can't possibly function or fulfill it's mandate.

            This is literally the reason the Articles of Confederation were scrapped. A weak or non-existent federal government without the ability to tax can't possibly function or fulfill it's mandate.

            7 votes
            1. [11]
              Dr_Douchebag
              Link Parent
              Good

              a weak or non-existent federal government without the ability to tax can't possibly function or fulfill it's mandate

              Good

              1 vote
              1. [10]
                guamisc
                Link Parent
                Good? Sounds terrible and ineffective, which is literally why we got rid of it. Society needed a more effective government. Where is your evidence that this is good? Or do you just have theory?...

                Good? Sounds terrible and ineffective, which is literally why we got rid of it. Society needed a more effective government.

                Where is your evidence that this is good? Or do you just have theory? Communism works too, in theory.

                9 votes
                1. [9]
                  Dr_Douchebag
                  (edited )
                  Link Parent
                  Society does not need government, on the contrary governments are leaches of society. The evidence is that it is a scale and the less economic and social regulations a country has (aka more...

                  Society does not need government, on the contrary governments are leaches of society.

                  The evidence is that it is a scale and the less economic and social regulations a country has (aka more freedom), the more economic prosperity it has. The opposite is true as well. The less economic freedom (more regulations, more taxes, more government, communism, etc) the less prosperous that nation becomes.

                  Communism does not work in theory because it does not solve the economic calculation problem. Just because it sounds good does not mean it works in theory

                  Cryptocurrency is a great experiment in this matter. I invested over 6 years ago and despite everyone saying I was insane and stupid it has paid off handsomely. I also think this is just the beginning of crypto as decentralization and deregulation are good and prosperous things.

                  1 vote
                  1. [8]
                    guamisc
                    Link Parent
                    Source?

                    Source?

                    4 votes
                    1. [7]
                      Dr_Douchebag
                      Link Parent
                      Let's take Somalia, a failed socialist state that left the country in utter ruin. Despite the utter ruin the country faced after their entire economy collapsed from socialism, they still were...

                      Let's take Somalia, a failed socialist state that left the country in utter ruin. Despite the utter ruin the country faced after their entire economy collapsed from socialism, they still were performing much better under total anarchy. unfortunately they've had a tyrranical government since 2007, so recently Somalia has been less than ideal.

                      The data suggest that while the state of this development remains low, on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government. Renewed vibrancy in critical sectors of Somalia’s economy and public goods in the absence of a predatory state are responsible for this improvement. Source

                      Now where are your sources that a bigger federal government with more regulations is beneficial to the economy.

                      1. [6]
                        guamisc
                        (edited )
                        Link Parent
                        So being stateless is better than having a terrible government in*(edit) one instance? It could be evidence for your point or it could not be. Where's the evidence for the rest of society?

                        So being stateless is better than having a terrible government in*(edit) one instance? It could be evidence for your point or it could not be.

                        Where's the evidence for the rest of society?

                        5 votes
                        1. [5]
                          Dr_Douchebag
                          Link Parent
                          OK well, casual (but persuasive) evidence relating economic freedom and economic growth abounds. After World War II, Korea was divided: South Korea fostered a market-oriented economy, while North...

                          OK well, casual (but persuasive) evidence relating economic freedom and economic growth abounds. After World War II, Korea was divided: South Korea fostered a market-oriented economy, while North Korea maintained a centrally planned economy. As this is being written, many citizens of North Korea are starving because their economy is failing, while South Korea has one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. Similarly, after World War II, Germany was divided into East and West Germany, and again the one with the market economy prospered while the one with the centrally planned economy fell behind. Less than a decade ago, East and West Germany were central players in the cold war that threatened to erupt into World War III. East Germany eventually surrendered to West Germany without a shot being fired, because people in the East wanted to have the advantages offered by West Germany’s economic system.

                          The former Soviet Union took the production-function model of growth very seriously, so the late empire provides an especially compelling example of the model’s limitations. It invested heavily in physical and human capital, producing a highly trained and educated work force. It also invested heavily in research and development, placing great emphasis on science and engineering. By increasing the quality and quantity of its capital and labor inputs, and creating technological advances, the Soviet Union, according to the production-function approach, should have had one of the world’s fastest-growing economies. Instead, it serves as an example that growth cannot be created by increasing inputs into the production process alone. More inputs lead to an increase in the value of output only when combined within an environment of economic freedom.

                          In light of their recent prosperity, it is easy to forget that nations like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore were poor only a few decades ago. Nations that shunned the market system in favor of central economic planning, like the Soviet Union, China, and India, had economies that languished. Now that those formerly socialist countries are moving toward economic freedom, their economies have started to grow. The casual evidence is so clear that there is now a worldwide movement toward more economic freedom. Yet, as compelling as this casual evidence is, it still leaves open the question of what, exactly, the components of economic freedom are, and how much effect they have on economic growth.

                          A number of recent academic studies have helped shed light on this issue. The most in-depth examination of economic freedom is a study by James Gwartney, Robert Lawson, and Walter Block, Economic Freedom of the World: 1975-1995, published in 1996 by the Fraser Institute. They develop a good numerical measure of economic freedom and show that it is strongly correlated with economic growth. Other academic studies have produced similar results, providing evidence that an environment of economic freedom will attract the inputs necessary to produce economic growth. Those studies examine many other factors, but conclude that the key ingredient is economic freedom. After a century in which the theory of economic growth had moved steadily away from the ideas of Adam Smith, economists are now returning to them to show how economic freedom is vital to prosperity.

                          Where's your evidence? Or logical defense? Or... anything?

                          1 vote
                          1. [4]
                            ZaphodBeebblebrox
                            Link Parent
                            You have shown quite well how a free market economy is better than a command economy. However, I fail to see how this applies to the market of a country like the united states. To me, it seems...

                            You have shown quite well how a free market economy is better than a command economy. However, I fail to see how this applies to the market of a country like the united states. To me, it seems like some governmental regulation is useful. Rules governing safety standards so that companies cannot, for example, serve food that is dangerous to people are useful. I fail to see how anarchy improves upon a society that has a decently free market already. Yes, there are some parts where it would improve, but I believe other parts will be devastated.

                            5 votes
                            1. [3]
                              Dr_Douchebag
                              Link Parent
                              Great question. Even if you assume there is no incentive for companies to not get their customers sick (hint: there is) I feel like the big thing people miss is that no government regulations does...

                              Great question. Even if you assume there is no incentive for companies to not get their customers sick (hint: there is) I feel like the big thing people miss is that no government regulations does not mean no regulations. A regulating agency is a business like anything else.

                              Check out the underwriters laboratory for example. They're basically the FDA for electronics. They're a private company and you see their stamp on pretty much everything electronic you buy. They're cheaper, more efficient, much better track record and can be sued if anything messes up and another company can arise if they start doing poorly. This cannot happen with the FDA, hence the corruption and inefficiency.

                              Pretty much everything the government does can be done better and cheaper privately. The government afterall is nothing but the biggest corporation in the country that forces you to buy its "annual public service subscription plan". If you don't men with guns will come to your house and force you to live in a small concrete box. Not only are you forced to buy it but in most services it offers it will prevent any competition through violence. Oh but every 4 years you get 1/350,000,000th of a vote for the CEO between 2 candidates forced upon us so it's fair... This service is totally worth 30-60% of your money...

                              Problem with the government is they're basically just a corporation that has a monopoly on violence and can force monopolies through violence. This is why they are so corrupt and inefficient because they can use violence to remove competition.

                              The government has monopolies or at the very least vast subsidies on many businesses in the us. If the government had a monopoly on food production and distribution I wouldn't be advocating that people starve, I'm saying that maybe the government shouldn't be the sole entity in control. Now replace food production with regulation and you get my point.

                              If you take the non aggression principle (it is immoral to initiate violence against another person unless in self defense) and extrapolate it out you'll come too the conclusion that not only is government a leach and inefficient drain on society but it is also immoral. The only real political/economic system that has been shown to work is capitalism because it promotes competition and decentralization through non violent means which helps society

                              1 vote
                              1. [2]
                                ZaphodBeebblebrox
                                Link Parent
                                However, your regulating entities would become a de facto government. It would be practically impossible to start a new one because no one would trust an unproven regulating agency. There might be...

                                However, your regulating entities would become a de facto government. It would be practically impossible to start a new one because no one would trust an unproven regulating agency. There might be a few companies that regulate different markets, but there will be one trusted company that ends up regulating more than 90% of a market.

                                Another potential problem I see with the idea of regulating agencies is what stops companies from faking their logo on their products. With a government, companies can be fined heavily or shut down for faking regulator approval. I can see an argument that this can be taken care of through spreading information about the company and boycotting it. However, the company that is faking regulator approval can simply pay news outlets to spread hide these stories and instead tell stories praising them. This would be expensive for the companies, but it would be better than going out of business.

                                Finally, one other difference I see is that the vast majority of UL's underwriting is for products whose failure does not kill anybody. This is vastly different to other industries, such as food, where a diseased product that is not caught can have devastating effects.

                                2 votes
                                1. Dr_Douchebag
                                  (edited )
                                  Link Parent
                                  They would not have the monopoly of force so they would not If the current trusted (wouldn't necessarily be one, why does windows exist when everyone can use Mac) started doing a poor job that's a...

                                  However, your regulating entities would become a de facto government

                                  They would not have the monopoly of force so they would not

                                  It would be practically impossible to start a new one because no one would trust an unproven regulating agency

                                  If the current trusted (wouldn't necessarily be one, why does windows exist when everyone can use Mac) started doing a poor job that's a great opportunity for a new business

                                  There might be a few companies that regulate different markets, but there will be one trusted company that ends up regulating more than 90% of a market

                                  How would you know this? Without government regulation "monopolies" only exist through efficiency and these are usually temporary at best. Long term monopolies always have government involvement.

                                  I see with the idea of regulating agencies is what stops companies from faking their logo on their products

                                  Why hasn't Rolex gone out of business due to fakes. Wouldn't be hard to go to the official regulator source and see their grade

                                  However, the company that is faking regulator approval can simply pay news outlets to spread hide these stories and instead tell stories praising them.

                                  But you could still go to the official source and see and if a company got caught faking it, it would destroy them

                                  one other difference I see is that the vast majority of UL's underwriting is for products whose failure does not kill anybody. This is vastly different to other industries, such as food, where a diseased product that is not caught can have devastating effects.

                                  A) defective electrical devices can definitely kill
                                  B) companies and the regulator company have inventives to not kill consumers especially in this day of information
                                  C) I fail to see how a private company with its business and reputation in the line would do a worse job than the government monopoly. FDA revokes drugs all the time that are approved but later deemed dangerous. You can't sue them though and they can't go out of business

                                  1 vote
          2. [9]
            Dr_Douchebag
            Link Parent
            Most of our defense isn't so much a defense as it is an empire. Just talk to the Vietnamese or Afghanis how well some native civilians with a gun in their hands can protect their land against the...

            Most of our defense isn't so much a defense as it is an empire. Just talk to the Vietnamese or Afghanis how well some native civilians with a gun in their hands can protect their land against the most powerful military in the world. The American revolution itself was just a militia that Rose up and overcame the biggest military in the world at that time.

            If it were actually a time of invasion and crisis people would donate money just like they currently volunteer for the army. Additionally the vast majority of military equipment is made by private firms with government grants already.

            Additionally in this land they would not be occupying any other territory, there would be no reason to attack this country and lose out on the trade benefits except to steal the land and resources. That requires boots on the ground, more than just drones and nuclear bombs. The attacking country would not want to reduce the country to a smoldering glowing green pile of nothing.

            Defense can easily be privately funded and organized. That was how the United States won the revolutionary war.

            1. [8]
              Pilgrim
              Link Parent
              I seriously doubt that the Vietnamese or Afghanis would say that they wanted to defend themselves. I'd think they would say they'd have preferred a standing army protect them so they didn't have...

              I seriously doubt that the Vietnamese or Afghanis would say that they wanted to defend themselves. I'd think they would say they'd have preferred a standing army protect them so they didn't have to do it themselves (and perhaps prevent an invasion altogether).

              1. [7]
                Dr_Douchebag
                Link Parent
                My point is you don't need a massive standing army to defend yourself, even from the most powerful military in the world. Also if an invasion comes to your soil, regardless of your nation's army...

                My point is you don't need a massive standing army to defend yourself, even from the most powerful military in the world. Also if an invasion comes to your soil, regardless of your nation's army status you are either fighting or running.

                1. [6]
                  Pilgrim
                  Link Parent
                  Our military doesn't exist only to defend the populace from a land invasion. A major function is for deterrence and projection of influence globally. Small arms won't protect cities from bombs,...

                  My point is you don't need a massive standing army to defend yourself, even from the most powerful military in the world.

                  Our military doesn't exist only to defend the populace from a land invasion. A major function is for deterrence and projection of influence globally. Small arms won't protect cities from bombs, nor will they protect ships carrying goods, nor convince dictators from gassing their own citizens.

                  One might say "well we'll have citizens volunteer to get training and fly planes, drive tanks, man artillery, etc." And that's all well and good, but that's essentially what we do now.

                  1 vote
                  1. [5]
                    Dr_Douchebag
                    Link Parent
                    Our military should only exist to protect our country. We do not need to be world police. The real reason our military is so big it a combination of coorporate welfare and us using force to invade...

                    Our military should only exist to protect our country. We do not need to be world police. The real reason our military is so big it a combination of coorporate welfare and us using force to invade other countries to take resources which is also wrong

                    well we'll have citizens volunteer to get training and fly planes, drive tanks, man artillery, etc."

                    Not sure where you're from but I'm from the south and people would gladly volunteer for this. It's not what we go now. Now we spend $8T a year on a massive corporate welfare military industrial complex to steal other countries oil

                    1. [4]
                      Pilgrim
                      Link Parent
                      What about our ships that carry our goods to other countries? Or our planes? Who guards our embassies? Who provides protection for companies in hostile countries? Our has the bar moved here? Are...

                      Our military should only exist to protect our country.

                      What about our ships that carry our goods to other countries? Or our planes? Who guards our embassies? Who provides protection for companies in hostile countries? Our has the bar moved here? Are we now saying the military is OK to do those things because they involve protecting the country? Because saying the U.S. shouldn't be world police is a much different statement then saying we don't need a military (except for militia to defend against land invasion).

                      Not sure where you're from but I'm from the south and people would gladly volunteer for this.

                      Then please direct them to one of the branches of the U.S. military, the finest all-volunteer army that's ever existed.

                      1 vote
                      1. [3]
                        Dr_Douchebag
                        Link Parent
                        Private companies can build ships If they're hostile we don't need to trade with them but that's for any private person or business to decide. We need a volunteer militia and a gun in every home...

                        Private companies can build ships

                        If they're hostile we don't need to trade with them but that's for any private person or business to decide.

                        We need a volunteer militia and a gun in every home so that if anyone invades, anyone could be a threat.

                        Let's be neutral and free

                        1. [2]
                          Pilgrim
                          Link Parent
                          You didn’t really address my points, but that’s ok. You seem cool and a lot of the stuff you don’t like about government, I don’t like either. Have an awesome weekend!

                          You didn’t really address my points, but that’s ok. You seem cool and a lot of the stuff you don’t like about government, I don’t like either. Have an awesome weekend!

                          1 vote
                          1. Dr_Douchebag
                            Link Parent
                            Well I guess I misunderstood you but yea the government sucks. Have a good weekend too

                            Well I guess I misunderstood you but yea the government sucks. Have a good weekend too

                            1 vote
    2. [2]
      ajar
      Link Parent
      Isn't belief in a private company the same thing though?

      and that belief in the State is little different than any other religion.

      Isn't belief in a private company the same thing though?

      2 votes
      1. [2]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. ajar
          Link Parent
          I see. I thought you were referring to the fictional nature of state and religion, and that's where I was drawing the analogy to corporations. I admittedly know very little of economics, so I...

          I see. I thought you were referring to the fictional nature of state and religion, and that's where I was drawing the analogy to corporations.

          I admittedly know very little of economics, so I probably sound naive, but I certainly feel discomfort with any system based on debt, so the market itself is a problem for me. I don't have any acceptable alternatives either, so not very constructive, I know.

          On the other hand, philosophically, I don't think free will is a thing, so being "forced" to do something is just the way things are for me, in any system. And "choosing" to withdraw financial support is not freer than anything else in my view.

  5. [12]
    BuckeyeSundae
    (edited )
    Link
    So rather than outright labeling myself, I thought I'd give a quick rundown on where I fall on a variety of social, economic, science, and foreign policy issues (as an American). I'll let you to...

    So rather than outright labeling myself, I thought I'd give a quick rundown on where I fall on a variety of social, economic, science, and foreign policy issues (as an American). I'll let you to the labeling as it doesn't really matter that much to me.

    Social

    • Everyone, and I mean literally every person, has a statistically equal chance of meaningfully contributing to society. That means that we have a public interest in making sure that everyone has a materially equal opportunity to contribute. Perfect equality is not and should not be the goal. Equal opportunity should be. Finding evidence of equal opportunity is hard, but should still be attempted.
    • Unless there is a really fucking big and widely agreed good reason, no government should interfere with anyone's natural rights. If voting is a feature of being represented in government (and I would prefer that it is failing some perfectly benevolent dictator that I really struggle to trust anyway), everyone of age should be allowed, informed if necessary, and encouraged to vote.
    • Fairness is not equality in outcomes. Fairness is equality in the starting point, equality in rules, and equality in enforcement.
    • I would perfectly comfortable with a 100% estate tax. You did not earn what your parents earned. You are your own person with your own chance to succeed. I think a lot of our problems as a society come from inherited wealth. I happen to think 100% estate tax would probably be a bit too much (every parent wants to feel like they have provided for their children), but if some group decided at some point to institute one, I'm not complaining.
    • My chief concern when it comes to a democracy is making sure that it is reasonably free from overt corruption. This means freeing elected officials from some of the enormous pressures of fundraising for their parties. It means maintaining reasonable restrictions on a lobbyist's access to a lawmaker. It means making sure the president of the united states isn't acting in his own private interests on a given policy. I do not go so far as to believe Citizens United must be reversed entirely (I agree that corporations are run by people), but there does need to be transparency in all money spent on political speech. We must know who is speaking to judge the speech and put it in appropriate context. Large donors must not be allowed to hide their donations to major political organizations, either in terms of lobbying or policy making. I would be in favor of publicly funding political campaigns, though I would also be worried about whether candidates could meaningfully break though the noise to reach voters and how much funding PACs have in comparison to the candidates for office.

    Economic

    • I hate minimum wage limits. I do not think they are a good way to enforce either a good quality of living or economic equality in opportunity. Minimum wage restrictions depress job availability for positions impacted by the minimum wage and they contribute to inflation (which negates the whole point of a minimum wage). If you have more people with more money but do nothing else, inflation rises. This is just basic shit. I am deeply frustrated when people cast being against minimum wages as hating poor people. Partisans do this to shut down conversations. Instead, I want a maximum wage limit. As a ratio of the lowest earner in the company, I want it so the top earner in a company can only earn so much more. For starters we can say 350 times and have a meaningful, if not very painful regulation.
    • I think the government has a role to play in a well-regulated market, with a free market as the goal even if it can't be reached. A market has tendencies due to the actors within it. Given unions too much power and you have an imbalance. Give owners too much power, and you have an imbalance. Give consumers too much power and you have an imbalance. A good government needs to ensure that these three market forces have roughly equal bargaining power, vis-à-vis one another. That means publicizing information that might reasonably impact consumer decisions (i.e., on a product's health impacts), securing workers rights and providing mechanisms for them to meaningfully make use of them when an owner/manager abuses them (workers compensation, labor rules, etc.), and making sure that owners are reasonably free to reap the benefits of their company and structure it however they wish (within reason).
    • Taxes should be used to fund projects that are in the public interest (especially public goods), in proportions decided by elected officials. If you do not wish to pay a tax, you do not need to be in society. You may choose to leave and go somewhere else. I hear Antarctica has some real estate showing up these days. Taxes do not get to be line-item-vetoed by its populace. So long as the elected officials are working in good faith to ensure funds are being properly used for projects that are in the public interest, there cannot be said to be any misrepresentation.

    Science

    • Science is in the public interest to fund and research in a profit-neutral way. No well regulated market will gladly spend millions or billions in research on most scientific questions that would advance either our understanding or our ability to impact the world around us if there's no reasonable angle on profit. Many scientific questions that would advance us as a people do not include a profit component (some do, and those can be left to the private sector generally). That said, when the government is the gatekeeper of funds, scientists will need to have a more specific goal in mind than "to see what we get." The scientific method requires a thesis to be proven wrong. So there has to be some form of auditing going on to make sure that funds are being properly distributed. I do get into a harry situation when it comes to distributing funds based on likely impact, which is where my gut takes me, but I think that letting the nuts and bolts of this be decided by competent specialists does just fine.
    • Global warming is happening already and will have (is already having) foreseeable impacts everywhere. Wet areas will get more wet; dry areas will get more dry; weather-based disasters will get more frequent and severe. So we need to be ready for all of these things, even if we can't necessarily summon the political will power to stop the contributing substances that are driving them. We need to invest, now, in better flooding management in wet areas (because they will flood more and worse).
    • Nuclear energy is great. Invest more in it and make sure it can run as a stopgap to fill the holes in the grid's current and future energy demand that other, renewable sources of energy cannot fill. Continuing to move away from dirtier energy sources toward cleaner ones helps us immensely in grappling with the likely impacts of global warming (though obviously it is not something we can meaningfully reverse without technology that can scrub the atmosphere of warming particles). That said, I do not agree that moving away from these fossil fuel based energy sources must be sudden or must leave people trained to work in those fields cut and dry. Reasonable investments have to go into making sure there is as minimal pain in the communities most heavily impacted by these shifts as possible.

    Foreign Policy

    • I think the world benefits generally from having the United States as the hegemonic power. As far as hegemonic powers go, the United States has been quite willing to let most other countries decide their own policies. I see a retreat to American isolationism as increasing the risk for war in the world, even if the current brand of American isolationism is neither extreme nor cutting back on military funding. Providing leadership opportunities through its absence for powers that would compete directly with the United States for global influence is a strategic mistake to US interests, even as it might be in the world's long term best interests.
    • I do not think the world benefits much from the United States insisting on spreading democracy ... much anywhere. State building is too expensive, it's too costly to human life, and it doesn't work. Our failures in Iraq led directly toward vulnerabilities that allowed ISIS control of much of the northern part of the country. We have still left our Kurdish allies largely abandoned within the structure of a state formed by the British, a state that largely hates them and would seek to mitigate their political power to rule themselves as quickly as it can figure out how to stop the rest of its nation from burning. Afghanistan is still struggling to make meaningful progress toward becoming a working federal state. And Libya ... Well. I can't think of a better poster child for failed humanitarian intervention. The sooner the United States re-learns that it is better to let the bad guy run his fiefdom than to topple him ourselves, the better off we and the world will be.

    I can't really think of many other broad political statements that I would make. How would you describe me?

    Edit: Morning essays come with many errors. I fixed a few.

    6 votes
    1. [2]
      eladnarra
      Link Parent
      How do you define "contribute?" I'm curious because I know a lot of folks think of it in terms of full-time work, but the way you phrase it seems broader. Interesting... Seems like this would help...

      Everyone, and I mean literally every person, has a statistically equal chance of meaningfully contributing to society.

      How do you define "contribute?" I'm curious because I know a lot of folks think of it in terms of full-time work, but the way you phrase it seems broader.

      I would perfectly comfortable with a 100% estate tax. You did not earn what your parents earned. You are your own person with your own chance to succeed. I think a lot of our problems as a society come from inherited wealth. I happen to think 100% estate tax would probably be a bit too much (every parent wants to feel like they have provided for their children), but if some group decided at some point to institute one, I'm not complaining.

      Interesting... Seems like this would help reset at least some of the financial disadvantages stemming from institutionalized racism. (For example: policies that didn't allow black families to accumulate wealth in real estate.) It seems quite drastic absent other changes in (US) society, however. Relying on "your own chance to succeed" only works if your chance was the same as other people's. Which you cover when talking about fairness and equal opportunity, but... I don't see those happening any time soon. (I come at this issue from a selfish angle, because if my parents can't leave me anything and my current situation doesn't change, I'm pretty much screwed, haha.)

      So there has to be some form of auditing going on to make sure that funds are being properly distributed. I do get into a harry situation when it comes to distributing funds based on likely impact, which is where my gut takes me, but I think that letting the nuts and bolts of this be decided by competent specialists does just fine.

      Personally I'm wary of using likely impact as the only guideline (or even the main one), since so-called "basic research" can yield surprising results with real world applications. But having never done it, I'm not very familiar with current grant processes.

      2 votes
      1. BuckeyeSundae
        Link Parent
        The way I understand "contributing to society" is likely significantly broader than full-time work. GDP is a very imperfect measure of value (but it is a measure). Economic output is not all there...

        How do you define "contribute?" I'm curious because I know a lot of folks think of it in terms of full-time work, but the way you phrase it seems broader.

        The way I understand "contributing to society" is likely significantly broader than full-time work. GDP is a very imperfect measure of value (but it is a measure). Economic output is not all there is, but it is the easiest to measure and grapple with. So at minimum I would say someone can be contributing to society if they make something that other people really, really like or find thought-provoking or life-improving, what-have-you. If it makes society better in some way, it's a contribution.

        We have plenty of examples in art alone where artists are not fully appreciated for their work until well after they've died. Does that mean they didn't contribute to society because they didn't cash in? Of course not. It's hard to measure that contribution, but it's easy to notice how far beyond the artist's own pocketbook those contributions extend.

        Relying on "your own chance to succeed" only works if your chance was the same as other people's. Which you cover when talking about fairness and equal opportunity, but... I don't see those happening any time soon.

        Absolutely. I think there has to be a difference between the ideal and the real. The reality of where we're at is that people succeed on the backs of their predecessors all the time. It's so commonplace that to support a policy that combats that strikes people with shock.

        The goal though, for me, is getting closer to a society where we can each have an equal shot at contributing to society. We are social creatures and typically measure our success on how many other people value our input. It shouldn't matter whether you're black, a woman, LGBT+, white, male, straight, disabled, abled, or any other intersection that has historically seen power dynamics play out to advantage one group of people over another. It does right now, but the goal should be to get us to the point where it doesn't.

        Personally I'm wary of using likely impact as the only guideline (or even the main one)

        Yep, but as I said I'm more than happy letting people with more specialized training and knowledge than me settle what basis to allot funds out for themselves.

        2 votes
    2. [2]
      Savannajeff
      Link Parent
      The issue here is that if you have a 100% estate tax, people that are successful have less incentive to continue being successful, and you get stagnation instead of innovation. Well, Libya was...

      I would perfectly comfortable with a 100% estate tax. You did not earn what your parents earned. You are your own person with your own chance to succeed. I think a lot of our problems as a society come from inherited wealth. I happen to think 100% estate tax would probably be a bit too much (every parent wants to feel like they have provided for their children), but if some group decided at some point to institute one, I'm not complaining.

      The issue here is that if you have a 100% estate tax, people that are successful have less incentive to continue being successful, and you get stagnation instead of innovation.

      And Libya ... Well. I can't think of a better poster child for failed humanitarian intervention.

      Well, Libya was driven by Europe, and the mission wasn't state building or full blown intervention, it was to give the rebels a chance against a brutal, international terrorism sponsoring, dictator who was hiring foreign mercenaries to indiscriminately shoot people in the streets. With the Libyan intervention, the West had the (pragmatic) choice of do nothing, and let a dictator stay in power while tens of thousands die, or intervene, and give the Libyan people a chance to try and make something more of themselves. The Libyans broadly failed, but at least they had the opportunity.

      1 vote
      1. BuckeyeSundae
        Link Parent
        I think that's both worth the trade off and that people would get used to whatever system is in place and try to succeed anyway for the comparative advantages of being individually successful. So...

        The issue here is that if you have a 100% estate tax, people that are successful have less incentive to continue being successful, and you get stagnation instead of innovation.

        I think that's both worth the trade off and that people would get used to whatever system is in place and try to succeed anyway for the comparative advantages of being individually successful. So that doesn't really strike me as much of an issue that concerns me, same with maximum earnings caps.

        Well, Libya was driven by Europe

        And Europe was busy trying to get the United States to lead it. Obama said "we'll help, but we won't lead." That doesn't make it any less a poster child for failed humanitarian intervention, especially as it loomed heavily on Obama's mind when considering action in Syria.

        I also think it's rich to loftily believe that people will suddenly unite and form a functional government spontaneously in a power vacuum with as repressed a society as Libya by all accounts was under Qaddafi. If Simon Bolivar couldn't build a lasting, peaceful set of governments in northern South America, what hope did Libya have?

        1 vote
    3. [7]
      luke-jr
      Link Parent
      This view seems very oversimplified. I have 6 children, aged from zero to 12. I assume you agree I should be able to provide for them until they're 18 at least. Should I lose my ability to do so...

      I would perfectly comfortable with a 100% estate tax. You did not earn what your parents earned. You are your own person with your own chance to succeed. I think a lot of our problems as a society come from inherited wealth. I happen to think 100% estate tax would probably be a bit too much (every parent wants to feel like they have provided for their children), but if some group decided at some point to institute one, I'm not complaining.

      This view seems very oversimplified. I have 6 children, aged from zero to 12. I assume you agree I should be able to provide for them until they're 18 at least. Should I lose my ability to do so simply because I die early? Should my wife be forced to go out and get a job, and entrust our children to the care of someone else? Why can't I leave my resources to my wife, to provide the care our children will need to raise? Why can't we set up a trust to provide the resources our children will need to grow up, in the event that we both die early?

      Looking beyond the children getting to age 18, should I be forbidden to give to them after they are adults, if I am alive? Why should that change if I am dead? If I am forbidden to give to my adult children, should I be prohibited from charity toward other adults as well? This seems like a terrible society to belong to, if so...

      Instead, I want a maximum wage limit.

      I think this overlooks loopholes. Some CEOs only make some ridiculously low amount "officially".

      the United States has been quite willing to let most other countries decide their own policies.

      the United States insisting on spreading democracy

      Self-contradict much? ;)

      1 vote
      1. [6]
        BuckeyeSundae
        Link Parent
        First, I'll do you the favor and take this exact scenario at face value. Almost every nation has laws that allows spouses to inherit without paying any estate tax. I don't imagine that would be...

        I have 6 children, aged from zero to 12. I assume you agree I should be able to provide for them until they're 18 at least. Should I lose my ability to do so simply because I die early? Should my wife be forced to go out and get a job, and entrust our children to the care of someone else?

        First, I'll do you the favor and take this exact scenario at face value. Almost every nation has laws that allows spouses to inherit without paying any estate tax. I don't imagine that would be different under this system. If you die, your wife would be able to retain any assets under your estate.

        Second, the clear impact of the estate tax, as measured by how it currently works, is that the wealthy are without exception the most hit by the estate tax. From 2011 until 2017, people who leave an estate and taxable gifts less than $5,000,000 (using 2011 values and adjusted for inflation) don't even pay an estate as it currently works. In 2018 that exemption doubled to more than $11,180,000 (which was $10m in 2011 values). It would be unrealistic not to have some sort of threshold for people who fall below not to have to worry about an estate tax or gifts at all (and realistically, it's not worth the money to chase that shit).

        So pay for your kid's college. Get them cars, whatever. But know that when you die, if it's above a certain amount, they can't take it (all) with you.

        I think this overlooks loopholes. Some CEOs only make some ridiculously low amount "officially".

        It's pretty easy to count money earned through stocks and dividends as earned income, actually. Just requires the political will to classify it differently.

        Self-contradict much? ;)

        I can't help but noticed you missed that all important word "generally" as the lead in to that first quote. And generally it is true that the United States has been content, especially compared to other hegemonic powers (thinking the United Kingdom's hayday or Rome), to allow other nations in its circles of influence to decide their own policies. There have been exceptions, but they are the minority cases. How can I tell? Because I can list them.

        1. [5]
          luke-jr
          Link Parent
          So you would include all income of every employee toward the maximum? So someone with 2 jobs gets hit?

          It's pretty easy to count money earned through stocks and dividends as earned income, actually. Just requires the political will to classify it differently.

          So you would include all income of every employee toward the maximum? So someone with 2 jobs gets hit?

          1. [4]
            BuckeyeSundae
            Link Parent
            It wasn't clear initially what you were asking here. Why would every employee count toward the maximum? It's pretty simple really, the lowest wage earner (when their wage is calculated out to the...

            It wasn't clear initially what you were asking here. Why would every employee count toward the maximum?

            It's pretty simple really, the lowest wage earner (when their wage is calculated out to the amount a full-time employee would earn) would earn X amount annually. The top wage earner, including stock options, dividends, and other informal benefits provided by a company, would be allowed to earn up to 350x that amount.

            So for example suppose Corporation A, above 1000 employees, has the lowest wage earner working part time for $15/hr. That would calculate out to an annual rate of $31,200. That would mean that the maximum compensation the top wager earner would be $10,920,000 annually. Yes, it's a significant hit for a CEO of an investment bank or hospital that would be earning $350 million or some shit, but that's the fucking point. A company whose lowest wage earner is $30/hr would have a CEO that would be able to earn $21.8 million.

            1. [3]
              luke-jr
              Link Parent
              So let's look at a example wage earner: he works 2 jobs, and his salary is $1 at company XYZ, and he lives off his $500k salary with company ABC. What are the min/max salaries for everyone else at...

              So let's look at a example wage earner: he works 2 jobs, and his salary is $1 at company XYZ, and he lives off his $500k salary with company ABC. What are the min/max salaries for everyone else at companies XYZ and ABC?

              1 vote
              1. [2]
                BuckeyeSundae
                Link Parent
                The salary at the $1 company is superficial just to demonstrate technical compensation, it would not count him as a wage earner for the purpose of this calculation and I think you know that. Your...

                The salary at the $1 company is superficial just to demonstrate technical compensation, it would not count him as a wage earner for the purpose of this calculation and I think you know that. Your example is silly.

                You seem to be engaging in bad faith, so I think you should probably find something else to talk about. I'm not going to respond to any more of this tone.

                1 vote
                1. luke-jr
                  Link Parent
                  At what dollar point would you not-count people? That sounds ripe for abuse... There's no such thing as tone. If you think I'm engaging in bad faith, it is entirely in your head. Respond or not,...

                  At what dollar point would you not-count people? That sounds ripe for abuse...

                  There's no such thing as tone. If you think I'm engaging in bad faith, it is entirely in your head. Respond or not, is your choice...

                  1 vote
  6. [2]
    RespectMyAuthoriteh
    Link
    I've never been a fan of the "team" approach to politics, and feel it's doing more harm than good at this point. Instead of latching onto a particular ideology, I prefer to look at each issue...

    I've never been a fan of the "team" approach to politics, and feel it's doing more harm than good at this point. Instead of latching onto a particular ideology, I prefer to look at each issue independently and decide based on what I know about it what the right approach is to that particular issue. If my view on it happens to be considered the liberal or Democrat position that's fine, or if it happens to match the conservative or Republican approach that's fine too, or libertarian, or socialist, or Brain Slug, or none of the above...

    5 votes
    1. Houdini111
      Link Parent
      I think that the two largest issues in current politics by far are parties and current voting systems. We'd be much better off if people could say the people they think best suit their opinions...

      I think that the two largest issues in current politics by far are parties and current voting systems. We'd be much better off if people could say the people they think best suit their opinions instead of voting of the least of two evils.

      2 votes
  7. Mumberthrax
    Link
    I'm not sure that I have a single ideology - if I do then it is something constituted by my own personal opinions on various matters. I call myself a MAGA populist in the sense that I do want...

    I'm not sure that I have a single ideology - if I do then it is something constituted by my own personal opinions on various matters. I call myself a MAGA populist in the sense that I do want America to be great, and I'm happy it has been improving so much under Donald Trump's Presidency - and I don't know what the best system is for everyone. I don't think I (or most anyone else) have the full breadth of knowledge necessary to decide what model is a one-size-fits-all politically or economically.

    There are some general preferences and observations I hold, like:

    • erring on liberty rather than authority when possible
    • sticking with what works okay more often than radically changing things (but still trying new things in experimental sandboxes)
    • negotiation and trade are far more preferable than violence and war
    • laws and acting as-if they are important keeps society stable
    • a collection of individuals is often smarter than a single person (but an individual is often smarter than a mob)
    • oligarchies tend to form, corruption/conspiracies are a real and tangible cancer in our societies
    • local > non-local
    • decentralization trends more resilient than centralization
    • There are real and legitimate dangers, and it's safer to be considered too dangerous to fuck with than to be a pushover
    • most people are irrational, most are brainwashed in one way or another - and most of those get angry at the suggestion
    • nihilism and postmodernism are dangerous ideologies
    • we're in an age of technological novelty like none humanity has ever had in recorded history - there are a million ways things could go from here. Anyone claiming history repeats itself is not thinking.
    • There are people who oppose most everything listed here, and some of them are in positions of considerable power/influence.
    • etc.

    I'm cautiously optimistic. There are paths we can follow which would improve everyone's quality of life tremendously, and there are paths which could be very dark. I think moreso than anything else, we're on the cusp of an age where humanity is realizing that many of the problems that we have been faced with which seemed intractable only had substance in our imaginations, and by changing our thoughts and ways of seeing reality, they can be transformed into situations that everyone benefits from. Some people have been saying this phenomenon is what will bring us to a Golden Age - I think they may have it right.

    5 votes
  8. [13]
    Silbern
    Link
    I would consider myself to be what we would call a "democratic socialist" in the US. Basically, a strongly regulated free market, a solid emphasis on equal opportunity and fairness, a firm hand on...

    I would consider myself to be what we would call a "democratic socialist" in the US. Basically, a strongly regulated free market, a solid emphasis on equal opportunity and fairness, a firm hand on reducing or eliminating governmental corruption, a focus on soft power and diplomacy internationally, and a very technocratic & science/data driven attitude of constantly looking at where / what can be improved upon. I'm also a strong environmentalist and would support bringing back or strengthening many public programs (for example, the introduction of a basic income, returning the USPS to a fully public service, single payer health insurance, etc.)

    4 votes
    1. [9]
      Dr_Douchebag
      Link Parent
      Pick one. Not saying regulation is wrong (I personally think it is) but regardless of your thoughts on that by definition a free market is one without regulation and government interference hence...

      Strongly regulated
      Free market

      Pick one. Not saying regulation is wrong (I personally think it is) but regardless of your thoughts on that by definition a free market is one without regulation and government interference hence "free". You mean a strongly regulated market which is basically just saying you think communism and socialism is wrong but you still think there should be a market and property rights but that the government must maintain tight control over it.

      4 votes
      1. [8]
        Silbern
        Link Parent
        "Free market" as defined as this by my dictionary: "an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses". The problem with a complete...

        "Free market" as defined as this by my dictionary: "an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses". The problem with a complete lack of regulation is that eventually it eliminates competition; all free markets end up in a monopoly or duopoly given sufficient time and lack of oversight. Hence I view a "free market", defined as a market without any regulation, as an oxymoron; kind of like saying "privatized communism" or "authoritarian-anarchists". Of course, I would also strongly prefer regulations to also include things like the product's safety, I can understand if that doesn't make it a free market; but you need to accept at some point that there needs to be governmental oversight if you don't want it to end up as a stable monopoly or duopoly with little meaningful competition (at which point it is certainly not a free market anymore).

        7 votes
        1. [7]
          Dr_Douchebag
          Link Parent
          Regulations are by definition restrictions Source please. I would say the opposite, monopolies and oligopolies cannot form without government interference. If you're going to say"robber barons"...

          an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses

          Regulations are by definition restrictions

          all free markets end up in a monopoly or duopoly given sufficient time and lack of oversight.

          Source please. I would say the opposite, monopolies and oligopolies cannot form without government interference. If you're going to say"robber barons" I'd be happy to talk about it but it's a tired and misinformed talking point against laissez faire capitalism. Just look at Telecom and health insurance in America. Vast restrictions create the monopolies and oligopolies we see

          Hence I view a "free market", defined as a market without any regulation, as an oxymoron; kind of like saying "privatized communism" or "authoritarian-anarchists"

          That's because you misunderstand how monopolies are formed. It's not an oxymoron it just means a market free of regulations, control and oversight. One person making a voluntary transaction with another without a third party interjecting rules is a free market

          1 vote
          1. [4]
            Silbern
            Link Parent
            Sure, but they don't necessarily affect competition. For example, if the government regulates that all school buses must be painted yellow, how does this destroy competitiveness between school bus...
            1. Sure, but they don't necessarily affect competition. For example, if the government regulates that all school buses must be painted yellow, how does this destroy competitiveness between school bus manufacturers?

            2. It's interesting you pick two businesses that are strongly prone to natural monopolies because of the very high initial investment costs required to get into both. It's also interesting to note these two businesses are most diverse in the more regulated and restrictive democratically run states, whereas the most libertarian and free market states like Kansas tend to be strongly monopolized. I challenge you to name me how the overbearing government has caused there to be only two, three at best, major companies left that manufacture widely available soda.

            3. Sure, and what will eventually happen? One person will eventually outcompete all of the rest, absorb and buy out his competitors, or use dirty tactics to force them out of business. It happend with Standard Oil, it happend with Microsoft, it happend with Dart Containers (which manufactures almost every foam or plastic disposable cup you can buy anywhere in the US), and it will keep happening as long as we sit around and twiddle our thumbs hoping the problem goes away on its own.

            6 votes
            1. [3]
              Dr_Douchebag
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              Different regulations have different effects but they almost always cost money. Forcing them to be yellow increases paint costs. You choose a rather innocuous example that wouldn't have a lot of...

              Different regulations have different effects but they almost always cost money. Forcing them to be yellow increases paint costs. You choose a rather innocuous example that wouldn't have a lot of real world effect but it would have some.

              Natural monopolies don't exist in the real world. They are a made up theoretical idea. All monopolies that exist today are monopolies because of government intervention because governments own a monopoly on violence.

              Also there are tons of soda companies. Rc cola, Coca-Cola Company, Pepsico, Dr. Pepper, Snapple Group, faygo, Cott, Jones Soda. Having a large market share because you produce a product efficiently is beneficial to consumers. Having a large market share because you made extra rules to rent seek and increase cost entering the market is detremental to consumers.

              One person will eventually outcompete all of the rest, absorb and buy out his competitors, or use dirty tactics to force them out of business

              I think what you're trying to describe is a practice called "predatory pricing". This is when you have a capital advantage so you lower the cost of goods functioning at a loss until your competition is out of business then you raise your prices back higher than previously. This is a flawed idea for multiple reasons.

              1. Price is only one aspect of competition. Firms compete in a variety of ways: service, location, packaging, marketing, even courtesy. For price alone to draw customers away from the competition, the predator would have to cut substantially—enough to outweigh all the other competitive pressures the others can throw at him. That means suffering losses on every unit sold. If the predator has a war-chest of “monopoly profits” to draw upon in such a battle, then the predatory price cutting theorist must explain how he was able to achieve such ability in the absence of this practice in the first place

              2. The large firm stands to lose the most. By definition, the large firm is already selling the most units. As a predator, it must actually step up its production if it is to have any effect on competitors. As Professor McGee observed, “To lure customers away from somebody, he (the predator) must be prepared to serve them himself. The monopolizer thus finds himself in the position of selling more—and therefore losing more—than his competitors.”

              3. Consumers will increase their purchases at the “bargain prices.” This factor causes the predator to step up production even further. It also puts off the day when he can “cash in” on his hoped-for victory because consumers will be in a position to refrain from purchasing at higher prices, consuming their stockpiles instead.

              4. The length of the battle is always uncertain. The predator does not know how long he must suffer losses before his competitors quit. It may take weeks, months, or even years. Meanwhile, consumers are “cleaning up” at his expense.

              5. Any “beaten” firms may reopen. Competitors may scale down production or close only temporarily as they “wait out the storm.” When the predator raises prices, they enter the market again. Conceivably, a “beaten” firm might be bought up by someone for a “song,” and then, under fresh management and with relatively low capital costs, face the predator with an actual competitive cost advantage.

              6. High prices encourage newcomers. Even if the predator drives everyone else from the market, raising prices will attract competition from people heretofore not even in the industry. The higher the prices go, the more powerful that attraction.

              7. The predator would lose the favor of consumers. Predatory price cutting is simply not good public relations. Once known, it would swiftly erode the public’s faith and good will. It might even evoke consumer boycotts and a backlash of sympathy for the firm’s competitors.

              1 vote
              1. [2]
                Silbern
                Link Parent
                You're not backing up your assertion with any kind of reasoning or evidence. You make an assertion that surely, it must reduce competition, but that's all you're doing. What do you mean? There are...
                1. You're not backing up your assertion with any kind of reasoning or evidence. You make an assertion that surely, it must reduce competition, but that's all you're doing.

                2. What do you mean? There are tons of natural monopolies. There is no law that bans or prevents Hawaiian Telecom from expanding to my house, but they haven't. I have only one choice in ISP. And if you think about where Hawaii is located and what exactly it costs to establish an internet connection here, it becomes pretty obvious why there are only two ISPs on all of the islands.

                3. I've never heard of RC cola or Jones group before, nor can I recall Snapple ever making a soda. I googled it and people were wondering what happened to it as far back as 2004, so yeah. I dunno if it's a regional thing or your knowledge is wildly out of date, but the only major companies you can buy soda from is either the Coca-Cola company, PepsiCo, and sometimes DrPepperCo. In Hawaii we have a few local brands, but can't buy from those outside of here.

                4. Once again, what you describe doesn't match up with the real world. Standard Oil was a very effective user of predatory pricing; temporarily dropping the cost of oil so low that it's competitors couldn't compete. The short term losses were then retained by high pricing afterwards,, and they were able to then use the premium profit they acquired in one region or state to fund the pricing drop in another. According to your theory, why wasn't standard Oil out-competed? Why did it require government action to break it up? As a matter of fact, why did almost all of trusts, many of which used this strategy as a component to their dominance, require intervention to stop?

                1 vote
                1. Dr_Douchebag
                  Link Parent
                  I am backing up all of my assertions with logical thought and evidence whereas you have not even supplied the logic part. In the '90s, the only option for an Internet connection was via phone...

                  I am backing up all of my assertions with logical thought and evidence whereas you have not even supplied the logic part.

                  In the '90s, the only option for an Internet connection was via phone companies, although "common carriage" rules ensured that older companies owning networks, like phone copper lines, would open them up to new competition. Then, with the introduction of cable, the U.S. government determined that deregulating the market (allowing for free competition) would ensure good service and low prices. It was a clear case of free market thinking: the idea that more lax regulation would allow private companies to fight each other. Their commercial war would bring down prices and increase the number of consumer options.

                  When President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act on Feb. 8, 1996, The New York Times reported that the bill "knocks down regulatory barriers and opens up local telephone, long-distance service and cable television to new competition." And for a while, it did. By the year 2000, thanks to common carriage rules, according to the U.S. Census, there were more than 9,000 ISPs in America.

                  But this competition bonanza wouldn't last long. In the early 2000s, the FCC deregulated the broadband market with two key decisions. In 2002, it decided not to extend common carrier rules to cable companies. And in 2005, the agency dropped the line sharing rule for DSL service, as well. According to the non-profit Media Access Project, both decisions were due to "massive lobbying" from cable and telecom companies. By 2005, the number of ISPs pummeled by 74% to less than 2,500.

                  So the cable that was originally placed for competition and federally funded was lobbied to become a monopoly by regulating isp access. On top of that governments are not allowing new companies such as Google fiber to lay their own cable. Government regulation is causing the problems the US experiences with internet. As far as you specifically, I'm sure there are other reasons including where you are located because Hawaii is pretty remote but to act like there are no restrictions leading to monopolies for US telecom companies is naive.

                  As far as Sodas go I can walk into my local Walmart and find Sam's cola (Walmart brand), cocacola, pepsi cola, RC cola, Mug rootbeer, and Dr Pepper. Thats 6 different soda companies. I'm not sure what your point on this is.

                  YES! Standard Oil. I've been waiting for you to drop this myth since I mentioned robber barons. You ask great questions but I take it you haven't actually researched it or thought about it much because you come to the wrong conclusions. So I already wrote about some logical reasons why predatory pricing doesn't work but I'll also mention a famous economic researcher named John McGee who has probably written more about Standard Oil than anyone else I can find.

                  John McGee, who studied the Standard Oil case in unprecedented depth, reporting his results in two seminal Journal of Law and Economics articles, contrasted its role as the legendary "archetype of predatory monopoly" in the public imagination with the evidence, and determined that "Standard Oil did not use predatory price cutting to acquire or keep monopoly power."

                  McGee also went further than the specific evidence in the Standard Oil case to show that even if a firm intended to monopolize an industry, the predatory pricing "story" as a means of achieving it was riddled with logical holes. (That is, predatory pricing costs the supposed predator far more than it costs the prey, who can further expand the cost difference by temporarily shutting down. Unless the predator is allowed to buy up a victim driven to bankruptcy, others can buy up those assets cheaply, thus allowing them to again compete with the predator and reenter effective competition. Without the ability to prevent entry once monopoly pricing is attempted, the monopoly payoff disappears. Because it requires monopoly power to finance predation, predation cannot be the source of monopoly power.)

                  McGee drew two particularly important conclusions.

                  1. "I doubt that predatory pricing is, or is likely to be, or has ever been a significant clog on the competitive process."

                  2. "If the popular interpretation of the Standard Oil case is at all responsible for the emphasis that anti-trust policy places on 'unfair' and 'monopolizing' business practices, that emphasis is misplaced."

                  In contrast to the predatory harm to consumers alleged against Standard Oil, what actually happened?

                  The mechanism of predatory exploitation of consumers requires substantial monopoly power that is used to increase prices, thereby reducing the outputs sold. But Standard Oil had no initial market power, with only about 4 percent of the market in 1870. Its output and market share grew as its superior efficiency dramatically lowered its refining costs (by 1897, they were less than one-tenth of their level in 1869), and it passed on the efficiency savings in sharply reduced prices for refined oil (which fell from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869, to 10 cents in 1874, to 8 cents in 1885, and to 5.9 cents in 1897). It never achieved a monopoly (in 1911, the year of the Supreme Court decision, Standard Oil had roughly 150 competitors, including Texaco and Gulf) that would enable it to monopolistically boost consumer prices. So it can hardly be argued seriously that Rockefeller pursued a predatory strategy involving massive losses for decades without achieving the alleged monopoly payoff, which was the source of supposed consumer harm.

                  Standard Oil is not the only example of alleged predation to be rejected upon investigation. And that has long been known. Thirty years ago, in an investigation of over 100 federal predation cases, Ronald Koller found no evidence of monopoly created via predatory pricing in the eight decades following the Sherman Act's passage in 1890. Or, as summarized by Thomas DiLorenzo,

                  There has never been a single clear-cut example of a monopoly created by so-called predatory pricing… claims of predatory pricing are typically made by competitors who are either unwilling or unable to cut their own prices. Thus, legal restrictions on price cutting, in the name of combating "predation," are inevitably protectionist and anti-consumer…"

                  Standard oil wasn't out-competed because it was more efficient. This is also noted in the fact that oil prices were the lowest they had ever been when Standard was at its peak and raised as soon as the anti-trust was set up. "Monopolies" formed from efficiency benefit the consumer but they rarely last as competitors will eventually copy the same methods to compete unless they are given the easier alternative of legislation. These types of monopolies, if you want to call them that because they are temporary at best, benefit the consumer. Monopolies that are formed due to increasing barriers to entry through rent seeking and regulation are detrimental to consumers and the economy and function to essentially consolidate wealth.

                  In a totally free market, the following factors insure that no firm, regardless of size, can charge and get “any price it wants”:

                  1. Free entry. Potential competition is encouraged by any firm’s abuse of the consumer. In describing entry into the oil business, Rockefeller once remarked that “all sorts of people . . . the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker began to refine oil.”[16]

                  2. Foreign competition. As long as government doesn’t hamper international trade, this is always a potent force.

                  3. Competition of substitutes. People are often able to substitute a product different from yet similar to the monopolist’s.

                  4. Competition of all goods for the consumer’s dollar. Every businessman is in competition with every other businessman to get consumers to spend their limited dollars on him.

                  5. Elasticity of demand. At higher prices, people will simply buy less.

          2. [2]
            nathan
            Link Parent
            I’m curious to hear your explanation of the telecoms monopoly? I always felt that those are monopolies because it requires such an up front investment in capital, as well as the fact that the...

            I’m curious to hear your explanation of the telecoms monopoly? I always felt that those are monopolies because it requires such an up front investment in capital, as well as the fact that the existing telecom companies have decided its more profitable not to compete.

            3 votes
            1. Dr_Douchebag
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              Sure. If you want an example of why this isn't the case just look at Google fiber. One of the richest companies on Earth is having a very difficult time expanding into different areas primarily...

              Sure. If you want an example of why this isn't the case just look at Google fiber. One of the richest companies on Earth is having a very difficult time expanding into different areas primarily because of local government regulations. If you want the history of us Telecoms it's a little more in depth.

              In the '90s, the only option for an Internet connection was via phone companies, although "common carriage" rules ensured that older companies owning networks, like phone copper lines, would open them up to new competition. Then, with the introduction of cable, the U.S. government determined that deregulating the market (allowing for free competition) would ensure good service and low prices. It was a clear case of free market thinking: the idea that more lax regulation would allow private companies to fight each other. Their commercial war would bring down prices and increase the number of consumer options.

              When President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act on Feb. 8, 1996, The New York Times reported that the bill "knocks down regulatory barriers and opens up local telephone, long-distance service and cable television to new competition." And for a while, it did. By the year 2000, thanks to common carriage rules, according to the U.S. Census, there were more than 9,000 ISPs in America.

              But this competition bonanza wouldn't last long. In the early 2000s, the FCC deregulated the broadband market with two key decisions. In 2002, it decided not to extend common carrier rules to cable companies. And in 2005, the agency dropped the line sharing rule for DSL service, as well. According to the non-profit Media Access Project, both decisions were due to "massive lobbying" from cable and telecom companies. By 2005, the number of ISPs pummeled by 74% to less than 2,500.

              So the cable that was originally placed for competition and federally funded was lobbied to become a monopoly by regulating isp access. On top of that governments are not allowing new companies such as Google fiber to lay their own cable. Government regulation is causing the problems the US experiences with internet. That's why it's so crazy to me that people want net neutrality, a law that was only in place since 2015, because it just solves the problem of excess regulation... with more regulation

              1 vote
    2. [3]
      guamisc
      Link Parent
      That's social democracy. If you're still advocating using the individual market and private ownership of the means of production you haven't really crossed over to Democratic socialism.

      That's social democracy. If you're still advocating using the individual market and private ownership of the means of production you haven't really crossed over to Democratic socialism.

      4 votes
      1. [2]
        Silbern
        Link Parent
        Ah, okay. A social democrat then.

        Ah, okay. A social democrat then.

        3 votes
        1. guamisc
          Link Parent
          It's alright. I used to not know exactly either. It also doesn't help that Bernie Samders incorrectly labels himself as a DemSoc while pushing SocDem policies and rhetoric in America.

          It's alright. I used to not know exactly either. It also doesn't help that Bernie Samders incorrectly labels himself as a DemSoc while pushing SocDem policies and rhetoric in America.

  9. [12]
    luke-jr
    (edited )
    Link
    I explicitly reject democracy (including the erroneous notion that authority comes from "the people"), capitalism (particularly, the idea of treating people are mere "human resources"), communism,...

    I explicitly reject democracy (including the erroneous notion that authority comes from "the people"), capitalism (particularly, the idea of treating people are mere "human resources"), communism, and secularism (especially the heresy of separation of Church and State).

    Ideally, I would prefer a Catholic monarchy, where the monarch can be deposed by a pope (a real one, not a fraud like Francis) or perhaps the leading bishop of the nation (at least when there isn't a pope to make the call), but otherwise has absolute civil authority (which is itself limited as defined by Catholic theology), and delegates it to subordinates whose job is primarily to represent the monarch.

    Catholic morality should be the basis for all criminal law. All criminals should be given a fair trial (somehow avoiding negligent juries that just want to get home to watch TV), and after a verdict is reached, a just punishment. Murderers (including abortionists) should be executed. Selling or distributing contraception publicly should be illegal. Marriage should be explicitly defined as relationships where procreation is the goal, and upheld as the only legal way to have sexual relations (but without wasting time going after those who don't publicly flaunt their fornication). Divorce/separation should not ever be granted by civil authorities, but recognised when permitted by (and to the extent permitted by) the Church's authority.

    Self-defense (which effectively requires guns) is a natural human right, and not subject to civil authority.

    4 votes
    1. [11]
      Algernon_Asimov
      Link Parent
      Wow. I can not find one single point in this credo that I can even remotely agree with. Normally I can find some point of agreement with anyone, no matter how minor that point it. But not in your...

      Wow. I can not find one single point in this credo that I can even remotely agree with. Normally I can find some point of agreement with anyone, no matter how minor that point it. But not in your case. Maybe if we dug deep enough, we might find something to agree on but, considering that you're basing your political views on a premise I find abhorrent - a theocratic monarchy - that's very unlikely.

      Kudos for putting yourself out there, though.

      6 votes
      1. [2]
        elf
        Link Parent
        I've probably spent too much time looking up obscure political philosophies on the internet, but @luke-jr's ideas are far from the worst I've encountered. I have some big disagreements with...

        I've probably spent too much time looking up obscure political philosophies on the internet, but @luke-jr's ideas are far from the worst I've encountered. I have some big disagreements with Catholic morality, and @luke-jr seems to believe in a rather extreme version of it, but at least it's based on respect for life, the value of the individual, and the equality of people. Of course, you can argue that supporting capital punishment isn't valuing life, restricting sexual autonomy isn't valuing the individual, and Catholicism has some serious problems with equality in regards to gender and sexuality, and, while I agree with those arguments, there exist ideologies that throw out those principles all together. Look up the neoreactionary movement (or don't actually, it might be better for your mental health not to) for examples of complete horribleness.

        2 votes
        1. Algernon_Asimov
          Link Parent
          Same here. I've definitely seen worse. But those ideas aren't here, and luke-jr's ideas are. And I was inclined to reply to luke-jr.

          @luke-jr's ideas are far from the worst I've encountered.

          Same here. I've definitely seen worse.

          But those ideas aren't here, and luke-jr's ideas are. And I was inclined to reply to luke-jr.

          3 votes
      2. [8]
        luke-jr
        Link Parent
        Theocracy is when the clergy rule, not when the State is itself simply religious (as all ought to be).

        Theocracy is when the clergy rule, not when the State is itself simply religious (as all ought to be).

        1 vote
        1. Algernon_Asimov
          Link Parent
          I know that. But having the monarch be appointed by a religious leader and having the laws be based on a religion gives the whole government model a very theocratic tone.

          I know that. But having the monarch be appointed by a religious leader and having the laws be based on a religion gives the whole government model a very theocratic tone.

          1 vote
        2. [6]
          Zeerph
          Link Parent
          Could you go further on why you think all nationstates should be religious? It seems to me that most religions are rather opposed to one another, even going as far as to manufacture conflict based...

          Could you go further on why you think all nationstates should be religious?

          It seems to me that most religions are rather opposed to one another, even going as far as to manufacture conflict based upon belief systems.

          1 vote
          1. [5]
            luke-jr
            Link Parent
            They should all only be Catholic, the true religion. Because truth is the only rational basis for government.

            They should all only be Catholic, the true religion. Because truth is the only rational basis for government.

            1. [4]
              geosmin
              Link Parent
              Since you invoke both rationality and Catholicism being the only true religion under one comment, Im genuinely curious what your rationale is for the latter? Shouldn't such bold changes to society...

              Since you invoke both rationality and Catholicism being the only true religion under one comment, Im genuinely curious what your rationale is for the latter?

              Shouldn't such bold changes to society be based on equally strong evidence?

              1 vote
              1. [3]
                luke-jr
                Link Parent
                Any rational person can come to the conclusion that Catholicism is certainly correct, beyond any reasonable doubt. It just takes a bit of studying.

                Any rational person can come to the conclusion that Catholicism is certainly correct, beyond any reasonable doubt. It just takes a bit of studying.

                1. [2]
                  geosmin
                  Link Parent
                  Would you mind citing a few examples that resonate strongly with you? I'm not looking to refute, just genuinely curious as an agnostic who's very interested in these types of things.

                  Would you mind citing a few examples that resonate strongly with you? I'm not looking to refute, just genuinely curious as an agnostic who's very interested in these types of things.

                  1 vote
                  1. luke-jr
                    Link Parent
                    Well, if you're an agnostic, the first step is to show that some God in fact exists in the first place. The Catholic Encyclopedia has a collection of such proofs, mirrored here:...

                    Well, if you're an agnostic, the first step is to show that some God in fact exists in the first place. The Catholic Encyclopedia has a collection of such proofs, mirrored here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm#IB

                    I personally prefer the ontological proof for this purpose, since it depends on nothing more than reason, but many people have trouble understanding the proof. http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/ontological_second.htm

  10. [3]
    ajar
    Link
    Hey, halwoods. Since it seems you only registered a couple of days ago I just wanted you (and anyone of the newcomers) to know there was another political thread not long ago. Not to discourage...

    Hey, halwoods. Since it seems you only registered a couple of days ago I just wanted you (and anyone of the newcomers) to know there was another political thread not long ago. Not to discourage you posting about this or any discussion, but just so you have some background. You should also be sure to check the FAQ thread, especially the two threads linked there about talking politics.

    As an aside, I think the topic of your post is too broad and that tends to derive in a discussion of feelings that can get pretty heated. But hopefully everyone will keep it civil, maybe will see some changes since the last thread.

    Welcome!

    3 votes
    1. [2]
      halwoods
      Link Parent
      Thanks for the input, I did see that thread however I interpreted that thread as "are there any Trump supporters here" which I feared set the tone for the discussion quite heavily. I was also...

      Thanks for the input, I did see that thread however I interpreted that thread as "are there any Trump supporters here" which I feared set the tone for the discussion quite heavily.

      I was also interested in having a very broad discussion, i.e I'm also interested in arguments that conclude that "no current political ideology exists today that has a fix" since I'm not certain that any "correct" ideology do exist.
      This is probably one of the biggest challenges we are facing as a species, and I have no ambition that the tildes community will solve this.

      We will see how this discussion evolves, I do share your concerns about having an actual quality discussion regarding politics on an anonymous internet forum.

      8 votes
      1. ajar
        Link Parent
        No problem. Fingers crossed.

        No problem. Fingers crossed.

        1 vote
  11. [8]
    Awoo
    Link
    If we assume that the demographics here will largely be similar to reddit then what we could assume is: 60% of reddit is non-American, mostly western countries. Right wing politics of western...

    If we assume that the demographics here will largely be similar to reddit then what we could assume is:

    60% of reddit is non-American, mostly western countries. Right wing politics of western countries aligns with left wing politics of America
    40% is American, split roughly in half on left/right.

    So roughly 80% will fit the American-left archetype, while 20% will be American-right, or considered European far-right. I think it's important to clarify American left/right vs European left/right in these international political conversations as the two spectrums are clearly very very different.


    With that said. I'm UK and largely support Labour's most recent policies.

    As for Green politics, they're nice in theory but pragmatism is always a good question. I'd rather vote against right wing policies for a non-perfect candidate than vote for a perfect set of policies that would never win and only give greater chance to a party whose policies I despise winning. I believe a lot of debate has occurred in the US over whether that is precisely what the American Green party leader did in the last election. Meanwhile here in the UK I can't see the Green party being effective, they aren't large/organised enough to win an election and if by some bizarre miracle they did then it would be a disaster as they don't have the structure for it. As they grow that might change but if Labour continues to move left then they are more or less replacing them.

    On immigration I'm in the middle (eu middle) as longterm issues arise with migrants. Keeping good controls and numbers lower over time means lower numbers when the longterm new problems arise which makes them significantly easier to deal with than having a problem arise 20 years down the line after absolutely enormous migrant waves. Not against it, nor have anything against migrants, I just recognise that issues do occur and being realistic with them is something we ought to be doing.

    Tl;dr: Pro social safety nets. Pro peace. Pro love. Middle(european version) on immigration.

    3 votes
    1. [2]
      iiv
      Link Parent
      From what I've seen it seems like there are a lot more Americans here, but I have no source. This definitely doesn't seem right. I would guess it's more like a 80/20 split (where left is the...

      60% of reddit is non-American, mostly western countries. Right wing politics of western countries aligns with left wing politics of America

      From what I've seen it seems like there are a lot more Americans here, but I have no source.

      40% is American, split roughly in half on left/right.

      This definitely doesn't seem right. I would guess it's more like a 80/20 split (where left is the larger part)

      1 vote
      1. Awoo
        Link Parent
        The American redditors are split in half politically in my opinion. It just looks differently because of bubbles and because lots of people assume any English speaker is American when the reality...

        The American redditors are split in half politically in my opinion. It just looks differently because of bubbles and because lots of people assume any English speaker is American when the reality is 60% of the people on reddit aren't. Many non-Americans chime in on American political topics, I do regularly, people assume I'm American unless I state otherwise which I definitely don't do for every post.

        So given this I think the total of all reddit is around 80/20. Because 60% of Reddit is non-american western countries. This gives 20% of reddit American-right and 80% of Reddit Western-middle (American left). At least that's how I come to it.

        I feel like here SHOULD be populated roughly the same, since the people here are largely a random collection of redditors. This should result in the demographics being roughly similar unless invites have been given out in communities that skew more to American usage for one reason or another.

        That or it could be that the invitation of predominantly moderators has resulted in demographics being closer to older reddit statistics where it was definitely more American than it is today.

        3 votes
    2. [3]
      MindsRedMill
      Link Parent
      You what now? So you're saying the Tories would be Democrats?

      Right wing politics of western countries aligns with left wing politics of America

      You what now? So you're saying the Tories would be Democrats?

      1. Awoo
        Link Parent
        A Tory government gave me gay marriage so I definitely can't call them Republicans. It's definitely wrong to compare them to the American right. They're waaaaay closer to the American center than...

        A Tory government gave me gay marriage so I definitely can't call them Republicans. It's definitely wrong to compare them to the American right. They're waaaaay closer to the American center than they are the American right.

        3 votes
      2. Tardigrade
        Link Parent
        The closest match in USA would probably be Democrat.

        The closest match in USA would probably be Democrat.

    3. [2]
      ajar
      Link Parent
      Is that so, though? I remember Spain's PM Aznar (right) and Blair being quite happy supporting Bush in the context of the invasion of Irak.

      Right wing politics of western countries aligns with left wing politics of America

      Is that so, though? I remember Spain's PM Aznar (right) and Blair being quite happy supporting Bush in the context of the invasion of Irak.

      1. Awoo
        Link Parent
        That's fair. Blair is pretty much considered a closet-Conservative member (uk party). He took the Labour party, a formerly left-wing(EU) party and moved them over to the right. Blair would...

        That's fair. Blair is pretty much considered a closet-Conservative member (uk party). He took the Labour party, a formerly left-wing(EU) party and moved them over to the right.

        Blair would probably be around middle-right American politics, right on British politics.

        Lib Dems are middle of British politics.

        Green are the left of British politics.

        The Labour of today (Corbyn's labour) has moved back to its old left position pre-Blair and is around the Green party on most topics now. I'd argue they're more left on some policies, particularly re-nationalisation of services.

        There's always room for splitting hairs though. You can only generalise on these things without diving down into the nitty gritty of every single policy.

        1 vote
  12. tape
    Link
    I don't follow lables enough to know if there's one that fits me but the new tax bill was nice because I pay less than I did last year. I believe abortion shouldn't be a political argument and not...

    I don't follow lables enough to know if there's one that fits me but the new tax bill was nice because I pay less than I did last year.
    I believe abortion shouldn't be a political argument and not regulated at the federal level because there are extreme idealogical differences not only in states but cities.
    Getting rid of guns will not change violence levels, it will just change those to knives. Also that uk judge that wants to dull down knives should be stabbed for comedic effect.

    3 votes
  13. [3]
    szferi
    (edited )
    Link
    I would seriously question the usefulness of identification by currently well known broad political ideology. In practical scenarios, you are always a bit this and other times a bit that. In my...

    I would seriously question the usefulness of identification by currently well known broad political ideology. In practical scenarios, you are always a bit this and other times a bit that. In my experience pure ideology only used in highly controversial topics. Saying for example that I'm leaning left also can mean very different things in countries and regions, in Central Europe, a right tends to favour big centralized government while in the US traditionally the opposite is true.
    Having said that I, for example, tend to support social justice movements but I think going extreme with them like the 'PC war' is just silly. On the economic issues, I support full heartedly the free markets and prefer as less regulation as possible, however, I understand and support policies which minimize the market forces in areas where natural resources, therefore, natural monopolies occur. And I can go on and on with these dichotomies.

    ps: There is a good reason there are no general political topics here:
    https://tildes.net/~tildes/4v/thoughts_on_handling_political_content_on_tildes

    1 vote
    1. [2]
      ajar
      Link Parent
      US right tends to favor decentralized government? Like state government your mean? Maybe it is different in Europe if you look at the different countries, but if you look at the EU, it's...

      Saying for example that I'm leaning left also can mean very different things in countries and regions, in Central Europe, a right tends to favour big centralized government while in the US traditionally the opposite is true.

      US right tends to favor decentralized government? Like state government your mean? Maybe it is different in Europe if you look at the different countries, but if you look at the EU, it's (probably) not that true. My perception is that right wing parties en Europe often support decentralization (so they can have centralization in the individual countries).

      In any case, it's true that the US "left" is certainly not what most Europeans would consider left.

      1 vote
      1. szferi
        Link Parent
        Yes you are right I mean “less federal goverment”. My observation is that as the extreamizim increases going right the support for any kind of state is decreases.

        Yes you are right I mean “less federal goverment”. My observation is that as the extreamizim increases going right the support for any kind of state is decreases.

  14. delicate_cauliflower
    Link
    I would consider myself too a social democrat but the last elections, in Italy, I voted for a party (+Europa) that would fall a bit more to the centre. My reasoning was that I really like their...

    I would consider myself too a social democrat but the last elections, in Italy, I voted for a party (+Europa) that would fall a bit more to the centre. My reasoning was that I really like their firm position on social issues and for the need of a more integrated EU. I also trust some of the party's representatives. I'm not keen on all their points pertaining economy, as I lean more left, but still I find them based on solid reasoning and I believe them to be all the opposite of empty promises (they are more like hard truths)
    Also I knew that if the party didn't get 3% its votes would go to Democratic Party, which was my second option, so I'm rather content with my decision. I just had to accept the total defeat of both parties
    As you may or may not know Italy is in a bit of a political turmoil right now, but it seems that we will have a government at last, though it's political stability remains to be seen

    1 vote
  15. [4]
    PogChamp
    (edited )
    Link
    If I had to give myself a label I'd describe myself as a digital era reformist. I believe in reuniting modern western democracy with its core foundation, the Athenian model. I believe that...

    If I had to give myself a label I'd describe myself as a digital era reformist. I believe in reuniting modern western democracy with its core foundation, the Athenian model. I believe that representative government is an outmoded institution that is wedged between the individual and their voice, and that their voice and ability to directly influence policy has been obscured as a consequence of the technological restrictions of the pre-digital era.

    To put it succinctly, we will soon have the ability to process each individual's vote on every issue and assimilate each and every single individual's vote in a meaningful way. I believe that in the wake of the digital revolution each citizen will have the privilege to directly influence, shape and vote on policy from the comfort and privacy of their home.

    The era of digital enlightenment is on the horizon, and through universal connectivity everyone will have the right and ability to actively participate in shaping every aspect of society.

    1 vote
    1. [2]
      halwoods
      Link Parent
      Interesting, the counter argument I often come accross for this model is that it would require a substantial effort for each citizen to be able to make educated votes. A single citizen would have...

      Interesting, the counter argument I often come accross for this model is that it would require a substantial effort for each citizen to be able to make educated votes. A single citizen would have no capacity to read up on the various subjects that is needed to make good policy decisions.

      4 votes
      1. Mumberthrax
        Link Parent
        I'm thinking that would be where the job of the media comes in to influence individual votes. Better hope they aren't biased in any way. :P

        I'm thinking that would be where the job of the media comes in to influence individual votes. Better hope they aren't biased in any way. :P

    2. MindsRedMill
      Link Parent
      Its not about processing, its that peopel can be pretty dumb in large numbers. Representatives can be expected to educate themselves, the public less so (they have , like, jobs). I don't ever want...

      Its not about processing, its that peopel can be pretty dumb in large numbers. Representatives can be expected to educate themselves, the public less so (they have , like, jobs). I don't ever want direct athenian democracy on, say, science policy. The Athenian model worked largely because it was a very small unit. This doesn't work in the 50-500million scale. Might at the 5-10 mil at a pinch, but even then there are big issues (CF Switzerland).

  16. AlastrionaCatskill
    Link
    I've become a lot more left recently, but two things for me are strong. I hate Trump Tiocfaidh ár lá

    I've become a lot more left recently, but two things for me are strong.

    1. I hate Trump
    2. Tiocfaidh ár lá
    1 vote
  17. Duke_Paul
    Link
    OG Federalist, right here. Alexander Hamilton had pretty much everything right, although I would argue for some term limits on the executive, rather than election for life. Also, understandably,...

    OG Federalist, right here. Alexander Hamilton had pretty much everything right, although I would argue for some term limits on the executive, rather than election for life. Also, understandably, his economic policies would be different in the context of today's world.

    1 vote
  18. michelle
    Link
    I tend to vote for NDP candidates in elections even when there's basically no chance for them winning but I think my personal political views might be all over the place. Like, economically I...

    I tend to vote for NDP candidates in elections even when there's basically no chance for them winning but I think my personal political views might be all over the place. Like, economically I believe capitalism was successful but we're in the natural outcome and it's only going to lead to more suffering. On the other hand I also don't see much hope in communism ever being properly implemented and socialist states are always rife with corruption. I think I don't super believe in people's ability to organize and the adage that people who seek power are exactly the ones who shouldn't be in power is very true.

    1 vote
  19. elgreco
    Link
    Moderate libertarian from the US here. I have a lot of sympathy for Voluntaryist/Anarchist thought but we're not culturally there yet. Taxation isn't theft if its not culturally considered theft,...

    Moderate libertarian from the US here. I have a lot of sympathy for Voluntaryist/Anarchist thought but we're not culturally there yet. Taxation isn't theft if its not culturally considered theft, and humans are ultimately subjective creatures.

    I support evidence based policy and the abolition of arbitrary law including broad occupational licencing, arbitrary visa issuance numbers, and arbitrary firearm regulation.

    As long as coercive states are deemed culturally legitimate, I support those that act as guarantors of civil and human rights (including non-discrimination and freedom of migration). I generally oppose state economic interference for both regulation and subsidy because the infrastructure of regulation is tremendously vulnerable to private sector rent seeking. Strong, complex regulation, along with an equally complex legal system, serves to entrench existing interests and reduces economic dynamism. Even the state's role of promoting competition should be called into question.

    Personal and economic freedoms are vastly more important to me than silly libertarian purity tests like opposing drivers licences, public schooling, or state-sponsored healthcare. If consumer needs are dire in those areas, a free market will rise to the occasion to fill them.

    1 vote
  20. saydie
    Link
    I'm a Democrat with socialist leanings and have been one my entire life It makes me sick to see what FDR and, to a lesser extent, LBJ accomplished socially being methodically disassembled by the...

    I'm a Democrat with socialist leanings and have been one my entire life It makes me sick to see what FDR and, to a lesser extent, LBJ accomplished socially being methodically disassembled by the current administration. I believe strongly that we need social safety nets and that we can't rely on private charities to provide for the poor, mostly because their assistance comes with strings attached. I loathe the insertion of religious dogma into our country's policies. I've never resented having to pay taxes. I've been alive long enough to see the American middle class being left behind by their government's business friendly policies and I don't think the internet has done our political will a bit of good. I am watching in horror the last shreds of global goodwill for my country being laid waste by an out of control demagogue whose own party lacks the will to rein him in. I support the Special Counsel's investigation into Russian influence on our election and am not at all convinced that Donald Trump is qualified to hold office. I've voted in every election, national, state and local since I became eligible to vote in 1972

    1 vote
  21. Bear
    Link
    Like some others here, I consider myself to be a social democrat, but I also believe in well-regulated and successful capitalism. My views have shaped my game in NationStates, a neat little...

    Like some others here, I consider myself to be a social democrat, but I also believe in well-regulated and successful capitalism.

    My views have shaped my game in NationStates, a neat little political choice game. Take a look at my countries info/main page to get an idea. And yes, these are really my views (although the game has not asked me my opinion yet on hundreds of issues that could further shape my country, as issues only occur once every 6 hours at the most).

    https://www.nationstates.net/nation=bearical

    1 vote
  22. Hypersapien
    Link
    Politically left. I've been an Independent all my life except for a few months in 2016 when I switched to Democrat so I could vote for Bernie Sanders in the primaries (I live in a closed primary...

    Politically left. I've been an Independent all my life except for a few months in 2016 when I switched to Democrat so I could vote for Bernie Sanders in the primaries (I live in a closed primary state).

    Basically I believe each individual should be free to live their life any way they see fit so long as they aren't harming anyone, placing an undue burden on society, or preventing anyone from doing the same.

    Accidents of birth or circumstance should never determine a person's place or role in society.

    I think all laws should be evidence-based. Laws should be shown to have some kind of net positive effect on society in order to be passed and be enforceable.

    1 vote
  23. [3]
    basicbaconbitch
    Link
    I'm not a fan of any of the political parties here in the U.S. and the way I vote really depends on the person who's running for office. If I like most of the candidate's platform, they're capable...

    I'm not a fan of any of the political parties here in the U.S. and the way I vote really depends on the person who's running for office. If I like most of the candidate's platform, they're capable of doing a fine job in office without doing much (if any) damage, and they're not a terrible person, I will vote for them. I can say that in 2016, I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries and Gary Johnson in the general election. According to the Political Compass Test, I'm a left-libertarian.

    Political Compass Results

    1 vote
  24. ols
    Link
    I’d describe myself as a centre-right liberal if that’s such a thing

    I’d describe myself as a centre-right liberal if that’s such a thing

    1 vote
  25. Flashynuff
    Link
    You know that 4-quadrant political graph? I'm in the bottom left corner.

    You know that 4-quadrant political graph? I'm in the bottom left corner.

  26. nor
    Link
    Surprised not to see more socialists here, definitely expected right libertarians though. As for me, I am academically a Marxist. Politically this tends to lend itself to socialism of course but I...

    Surprised not to see more socialists here, definitely expected right libertarians though.

    As for me, I am academically a Marxist. Politically this tends to lend itself to socialism of course but I tend to just say I'm a leftist for several reasons which I'd rather not share. My views can be thought of lining up with newer Marxist thought and especially 20th century critical theory. The most important thing to understand about my politics is I am anti-capitalist and this is why I joined tildes. Non-profit communities are very attractive to me and so are ones which are free open and source.

    I have several reservations about this quite controversial label:

    Firstly, I am not a tankie or a Stalin apologist. I do think being critical to the USSR is important and especially Stalin, but in the same breath I will be sure to criticize the U.S. and it's atrocities just as harshly.

    Also, I am willing to heathily debate someone if they'd like but don't respond to people who immediately attack my position, Id prefer a critical polemic and respectful (as much as is allowed in a heated debate) discourse.

    Hopefully the political aspect to this site can be developed in a way which maintains quality.

  27. [2]
    isuckwithusernames
    Link
    Far left.

    Far left.

    1. elf
      Link Parent
      You can't just say 'far left' (I mean, obviously you can, but...) There's so many different left wing ideologies to choose from! You could be a social democrat, a democratic socialist, a marxist,...

      You can't just say 'far left' (I mean, obviously you can, but...) There's so many different left wing ideologies to choose from! You could be a social democrat, a democratic socialist, a marxist, a marxist-leninist, a maoist, an anarchist, a syndicalist, an anarcho-syndicalist, a christian communalist, a left libertarian, or something completely different~

      3 votes