POG Politics Thread

[amplify]

Originally Posted by soah

well we managed to twice elect a guy who couldn't argue his way out of an unlocked room and look where that's gotten us

He was debating Al Gore who is terrifically unlikeable, stiff as a board and annoyingly pedantic and John Kerry who was doing all this "I voted for it before I voted against it" stuff which made it pretty easy on old W.

[Zurvan]

People don't care who wins debates. The media cares, but they're not people (present company excluded for politeness).

The average person votes based on the most ridiculous of reasons, and typically it's the same reason every time. One person might vote based on a candidates (perceived) support or non-support of abortion. The next because they heard (once) that small government was better and this dude (seems) to support smaller government. And so on.

Amp:

My fundamental belief is that this money belongs to the person who earned it and the state has stolen it from them at gunpoint.

I take this to mean you think government should have no taxation powers at all, which leads me to believe that you think there should not be government. Is that correct, or do you have a less absolute view that I'm missing?

[well named]

Next up: POG AC thread ldo

[chymechowder]

Originally Posted by amplify

Facts are fungible.

not to be flippant or off topic, but that's a good word for the dictionary game.

[Zurvan]

Originally Posted by well named

Next up: POG AC thread ldo

I still need somebody to explain AC to me, with a focus on "how do things actually work, knowing the way people are"

[lastchance]

Originally Posted by Zurvan

I still need somebody to explain AC to me, with a focus on "how do things actually work, knowing the way people are"

From what I've read in the politics forum (ph34r), it works by eliminating most government services except the police, the courts, and the military (and diplomacy?), and with this, the government can cut taxation to a bare minimum. All other services would be provided by capitalist market (schools, road-building, etc, etc).

[amplify]

Zurvan, that is an excellent question.

I don't think that there should not be government, people are free to have government if they wish it. I think there should be an absolute minimum of government, and that almost all of it should be local. Anything that can be handled in your home should be. This includes things like deciding to ingest drugs, have an abortion, marry who you wish, own substances and technologies, educate your children.

Anything that can not be handled in the home should be handled in the community. Minimal property taxes are a reasonable contribution to the maintenance of roads and so forth. In the rare occasion when something absolutely cannot be handled in the community, for instance, coordinating the construction of freeways between cities, it could be handled at the state level.

The Federal Government should be almost completely eradicated. All non-defensive military action should cease. Most Federal agencies such as the Departments of Education, Agriculture, Food & Drug, and so forth should be disbanded. The income tax should be repealed. The Federal Reserve System should be dismantled. All Federal social programs should cease. The Federal Government should exist only to coordinate defensive and constructive operations among the several states and promote trade and friendly relations with other nations.

Centralized government was what Jefferson had to fight against the Hamiltonians about during the drafting of the constitution. I think the Articles of Confederation is a superior document of freedom to the Constitution because it recognizes that local government is always superior.

[amplify]

Originally Posted by Zurvan

I still need somebody to explain AC to me, with a focus on "how do things actually work, knowing the way people are"

That's not really important. What is important is that we are free human beings on this earth and any attempt by another person or group to violate the sanctity of our freedom is morally wrong. ACists love to come up with a bunch of explanations about free market solutions to problems that are currently handled by government but those ideas are secondary. The main idea is that death is preferable to life in bondage. Free market solutions are preferable to governmental controls. How roads get built and garbage collected is wrong emphasis. Freedom is the ultimate condition to which mankind aspires. Constricting the freedom of another person is the worst action a human being can take.

[amplify]

imo

[lastchance]

Originally Posted by amplify

That's not really important. What is important is that we are free human beings on this earth and any attempt by another person or group to violate the sanctity of our freedom is morally wrong. ACists love to come up with a bunch of explanations about free market solutions to problems that are currently handled by government but those ideas are secondary. The main idea is that death is preferable to life in bondage. Free market solutions are preferable to governmental controls. How roads get built and garbage collected is wrong emphasis. Freedom is the ultimate condition to which mankind aspires. Constricting the freedom of another person is the worst action a human being can take.

This is pretty terrible. Freedom is just some stupid buzz-word that sounds good. What the hell does it mean here? What do you mean when you say "freedom?"

I don't have complete freedom. A government can give it's civilians extra options, more benefits by building roads/building infrastructure, more "freedom" in any case with superior infrastructure. Without roads, one doesn't have the freedom to travel more than 10 miles. These things matter.

Freedom isn't a line. It is not a dichotomy. It's a spectrum from being a work ant to being God. And in that spectrum, depending on how you define it, freedom isn't the only thing that matters.

[Madtown]

Originally Posted by Zurvan

I still need somebody to explain AC to me, with a focus on "how do things actually work, knowing the way people are"

AC is roughly as practical as full-blown communism, which is to say it is not practical whatsoever

[amplify]

LC,

I don't know what you are talking about. Freedom is the right to exist without interference. Either you are interfering with me or you aren't. If you cut off my right hand you can argue that you have given me extra options; I could attach a rake to it or a chainsaw. Government doesn't create anything, it just redistributes it after wasting a significant percentage. So it can never do anything but reduce the sum of the options of its subjects, increasing them for a few while restricting them for most.

Words mean specific things, they don't just mean anything depending on how you define them.

[well named]

I think the broader point is that it's not clear that successfulness of a society can be determined solely by maximizing a particular value, in this case "freedom". This is basically the same problem I have with praxeology as a basis for making political or economic decisions. I don't think the complexities of human interaction can be broken down in such a purely analytic way.

Which is not to say that I don't think certain rules of thumb have a rough truth to them -- that free markets are often preferable to government control, or that greater freedom of moral self-determinism is preferable to the alternative, for example -- but I do think that in solving real problems the strict application of such a general rule is unlikely to lead to a better outcome than other more pragmatic approaches.

BTW, I should probably know more about the Georgia/Russia situation than I do. If anyone has any ilinks to news or commentary that are of some depth I'd be appreciative.

[lastchance]

Amp, other things matter. Depending on the situation, they matter a lot more.

One cannot eliminate interference. People will always interfere with you. I can interfere with somebody by crossing the street, jaywalking, selling drugs on your corner (wire example ftw), stealing their property, etc. Only by eliminating interaction with other people can one eliminate interference by other people, and very few do that.

Interference is the price of interaction. If freedom is the only thing that matters, go into the woods and never interact with anybody ever again.

But freedom isn't the only thing that matters. Our social boundaries and the government tie us up, not because they force us, but because we let them, because the consequences for resisting are too high (for the most of us).

And the government can create wealth, like any organization can create wealth. Example: National freeway system. There is probably a lot of inefficiency in it's creation, but the drop in transaction costs is worth more than the money spent.

Finally, important note: I'm a consequentialist.

[amplify]

LC,

I agree that other things matter more, for example, eating. Liberty is a luxury. I said it was an ultimate condition for aspiration.



The idea of interference being the price of interaction is interesting, I'll have to think about that one as I haven't grokked it yet.

But if you steal my property, that is clearly morally wrong. I just don't see it as any different if you call yourself a government and then steal 30% of it. The consequences for resisting government are ultimate. If I don't pay my taxes I will get letters, then knocks on my door, then eventually people with guns will come to take me away to prison. If I defend myself they will kill me.

WN, I have no interest in maximizing the successfulness of society, by any metric. I am interested in maximizing the self-actualization of individuals. I am interested in cooperating with people in endeavors of mutual interest. Such as exchanging fluids with large-breasted women.

You raise another interesting point for me in saying that the government cannot actually restrict my freedom, they can only present me with consequences for resisting their authority. I will try to grok.