4 ms·

>Exactly, Warlordism is the antithesis of voluntary interaction. It is not a buzzword, but a shorthand used since I'm not writing a dissertation but a (supposed

>Exactly, Warlordism is the antithesis of voluntary interaction. It is not a buzzword, but a shorthand used since I'm not writing a dissertation but a (supposedly) brief comment. And you're claiming voluntary interactions create a situation of warlordism, which is inconsistent with your admission that "warlordism is the antithesis of voluntary interaction". Your use of the word 'warlordism' is inflammatory/scaremongering. >How long before someone or group of someones accumulate a critical mass of power, economic and/or violent? A surprisingly short time. And it happens every time. There is no fixed 'critical level of wealth'. It depends on various factors, like what kind of system of government is in place. In any case, you can't maintain a free society by violating people's right to engage in voluntary interactions, as part of your attempt to prevent income inequality. It's a self-defeating proposition, as the very prohibition against voluntary interaction makes people unfree, and creates a master: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforcing-the-law-is-inherently-violent/488828/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforci... Moreover, these prohibitions greatly exacerbate income inequality, as the Brookings link I provided earlier explains. Finally, trying to prevent the takeover of the political system by the rich by preventing parties from accumulating large amounts of private wealth is like trying to stop your boat from sinking by boiling away the ocean. There will always be huge pools of private wealth, and many that are outside the jurisdiction of your government. The solution is to plug the holes in the boat's hull, to prevent money from affecting electoral results. You should think outside the box, like considering the Athenian democracy model, which employed assemblies specifically to protect against corruption by wealthy interests.

toss1 9y ago
> The Warlordism problem is not a contradiction, it is a result. It is not instant, but it is the nearly inevitable consequence of a situation where laws do not govern/ regulate violent or economic interactions. > Critical mass of power -- of course the amount is variable, depending on a variety of factors. It is the result that counts -- some critical mass will be reached, and the concentration of wealth/power becomes self-reinforcing, and grows. > The only way I've seen in history that works is to mitigate this by creating a system of laws that force the distribution of power/wealth, and avoid excess concentrations of power/wealth. Yes, these legal systems do make us less free. If you really want complete freedom, you can go today to Somalia, South Sudan, remote Afghanistan, or a number of other places. Effectively no laws and complete freedom. Also an almost complete lack of hope of advancement for each individual and the society. ----- I agree that trying to prevent takeover of the political system by the rich/powerful is very difficult, nearly impossible. I also agree that we need to keep money out of elections as much as possible. The Citizens United decision was one of the worst in modern history. I also like the Athenian model, especially the part where the leaders were picked from a pool at random. I actually think that we could be doing better by that sort of method. Once you've achieved a certain level of skills/credentials (academic degree, military rank, corporate experience, you should become eligipble, like jury duty. You might simpy be randomly called to the House, Senate. Maybe a vote of confidence for a 2nd term, and pick the POTUS randomly from those who win that. But yes, while my political philosophy starts with the basis that Freedom is the first good unto itself, it is also not absolute, as having complete freedom results in extreme concentrations of power, reducing the total freedom -- the wealthy/powerful become very free, and the vast majority become dramatically less free. So, to maximize freedom, we need to limit concentrations of wealth/power. Yes that makes some less free, but it makes the greatest freedom for all.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  >So, to maximize freedom, we need to limit concentrations of wealth/power. Yes that makes some less free, but it makes the greatest freedom for all. Like I said, it's like trying to boil away the ocean. It's futile, given the scale and complexity of the economy, and given that you can't touch foreign sources of capital. In the attempt to control the entirety of the economy, you're giving governing authorities enormous powers of surveillance and interjection, which I strongly suggest will end up exacerbating income inequality even if that is the opposite of the original intent. I oppose campaign finance laws, because I believe it's another case of trying to boil away the ocean: in this case, control how much people spend on political advertisements. And once again you're giving enormous powers to governing authorities to dictate private actions, and this power can and will easily be exploited by special interests to further entrench the power. I'm glad you agree on the Athenian democracy model or something like it. Something like jury duty is exactly what I advocate.
  - toss1 9y ago
    Yes, the problem of regulatory capture is enormous, and once captured, can actually provide entities with concentrated wealth/power (really the same thing) with extra leverage to control it. One partial solution that has been shown to be somewhat durable is the divided government, multiple co-equal branches with different duties and capabilities. I think the American experiment has shown that we could probably do better with 4 or 5 branches, but three is a decent start. But it seems like we agree on the overall problem, which is how to prevent excessive concentrations of wealth/power, and do so in a society that has not grown the cultural wisdom and strength to do it intrinsically (Norway/Sweden being partial examples, where excessive wealth is shunned and prevented at many levels). I used to think that few/no laws/govt was the way to go, but every example I've seen, small differences simply accelerate into incredible concentrations of wealth/power at surprising speed. You keep arguing against my solution (limited/divided govt, with each component structurally defined to minimize concentrations of power and/or balance the concentrated power). What's yours?
    - Jabanga 9y ago

toss1 9y ago

> The Warlordism problem is not a contradiction, it is a result. It is not instant, but it is the nearly inevitable consequence of a situation where laws do not govern/ regulate violent or economic interactions. > Critical mass of power -- of course the amount is variable, depending on a variety of factors. It is the result that counts -- some critical mass will be reached, and the concentration of wealth/power becomes self-reinforcing, and grows. > The only way I've seen in history that works is to mitigate this by creating a system of laws that force the distribution of power/wealth, and avoid excess concentrations of power/wealth. Yes, these legal systems do make us less free. If you really want complete freedom, you can go today to Somalia, South Sudan, remote Afghanistan, or a number of other places. Effectively no laws and complete freedom. Also an almost complete lack of hope of advancement for each individual and the society. ----- I agree that trying to prevent takeover of the political system by the rich/powerful is very difficult, nearly impossible. I also agree that we need to keep money out of elections as much as possible. The Citizens United decision was one of the worst in modern history. I also like the Athenian model, especially the part where the leaders were picked from a pool at random. I actually think that we could be doing better by that sort of method. Once you've achieved a certain level of skills/credentials (academic degree, military rank, corporate experience, you should become eligipble, like jury duty. You might simpy be randomly called to the House, Senate. Maybe a vote of confidence for a 2nd term, and pick the POTUS randomly from those who win that. But yes, while my political philosophy starts with the basis that Freedom is the first good unto itself, it is also not absolute, as having complete freedom results in extreme concentrations of power, reducing the total freedom -- the wealthy/powerful become very free, and the vast majority become dramatically less free. So, to maximize freedom, we need to limit concentrations of wealth/power. Yes that makes some less free, but it makes the greatest freedom for all.

Jabanga 9y ago
>So, to maximize freedom, we need to limit concentrations of wealth/power. Yes that makes some less free, but it makes the greatest freedom for all. Like I said, it's like trying to boil away the ocean. It's futile, given the scale and complexity of the economy, and given that you can't touch foreign sources of capital. In the attempt to control the entirety of the economy, you're giving governing authorities enormous powers of surveillance and interjection, which I strongly suggest will end up exacerbating income inequality even if that is the opposite of the original intent. I oppose campaign finance laws, because I believe it's another case of trying to boil away the ocean: in this case, control how much people spend on political advertisements. And once again you're giving enormous powers to governing authorities to dictate private actions, and this power can and will easily be exploited by special interests to further entrench the power. I'm glad you agree on the Athenian democracy model or something like it. Something like jury duty is exactly what I advocate.
- toss1 9y ago
  Yes, the problem of regulatory capture is enormous, and once captured, can actually provide entities with concentrated wealth/power (really the same thing) with extra leverage to control it. One partial solution that has been shown to be somewhat durable is the divided government, multiple co-equal branches with different duties and capabilities. I think the American experiment has shown that we could probably do better with 4 or 5 branches, but three is a decent start. But it seems like we agree on the overall problem, which is how to prevent excessive concentrations of wealth/power, and do so in a society that has not grown the cultural wisdom and strength to do it intrinsically (Norway/Sweden being partial examples, where excessive wealth is shunned and prevented at many levels). I used to think that few/no laws/govt was the way to go, but every example I've seen, small differences simply accelerate into incredible concentrations of wealth/power at surprising speed. You keep arguing against my solution (limited/divided govt, with each component structurally defined to minimize concentrations of power and/or balance the concentrated power). What's yours?
  - Jabanga 9y ago