4 ms·

>To be honest my preferred solution is to minimise the ties between money and politics in general - the state shouldn't be given free reign to dick around in th

>To be honest my preferred solution is to minimise the ties between money and politics in general - the state shouldn't be given free reign to dick around in the economy, but only regulate and redistribute when it can be shown that a specific industry is broken in a specific way (negative externalities, natural monopolies, etc). I don't have a solution to this problem, but I think it would work better than what we have right now. When the state can basically do what it pleases there's a lot more room for backroom deals and loopholes. That is still politics deciding how ressources are allocated. Your solution is to give over the power over ressources to private individuals, instead of controlling them democratically. I think this process gives too much power to a few individuals.

beaconstudios 8y ago
> Your solution is to give over the power over ressources to private individuals, instead of controlling them democratically. The idea that we democratically control the government is basically a myth. Once we elect a party based on some loose promises, they have free reign to do whatever they want. We're basically voting for one of 2 sets of ideas that we dislike the least, and then giving absolute power to the people who parrot those ideas. Those that aren't part of the elected party (department heads outside the cabinet) are also effectively unelected leaders and will continue to hold power after a new party is elected. What I want is a limit on absolute power, for anyone. Currently the state apparatus is a form of absolute power, and thus a magnet for the kinds of corruption we're talking about. I'd much rather we kept a balance of power between the economy, the individual and the state such that each has its own power and none can force the hand of another. But that's just idealism really, I just think that for now billionaires are the lesser evil compared to the state.
- cyborgx7 8y ago
  That is a very specific description of the american voting system. I am not american. I agree that the current models of democratic control are severly and fundamentally flawed. But it's frightening to me that you think giving the power to private Billionaires with no democratic legitimization instead is a better solution. This is what people mean when they say Capitalist Libertarianism is a form of Authoritarianism.
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    I'm also not American, I'm British. We had a direct democratic vote very recently, which (regardless of whether you like the outcome or not) was surrounded by the most irrational propaganda I've ever seen, from both sides of the aisle. If you want more democracy, expect more of that. I'm also not a libertarian nor particularly a capitalist (I prefer syndicalism on a conceptual level), so your characterisation is both incorrect and reductionist. OK so if giving private citizens more power (though I'd phrase it as axing bad regulations) is "scary", what's the worst outcome? Compared to giving more power to the state? Because as far as I'm aware, almost all historical atrocities have been committed by states. The first three billionaires who jump into my head immediately (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos) pioneered personal computing, founded one of the most impactful charities in existence, vastly improved the portability of computing, and commoditised online shopping and started a private space agency. Can you think of anything billionaires have done that doesn't involve political corruption that is really really bad compared to the good that said individual has brought to the world? (without diving into the intricacies of whether people like Carl Icahn provide a net benefit, but I'm pretty against Wall Street and the public stock market anyway).

beaconstudios 8y ago

> Your solution is to give over the power over ressources to private individuals, instead of controlling them democratically. The idea that we democratically control the government is basically a myth. Once we elect a party based on some loose promises, they have free reign to do whatever they want. We're basically voting for one of 2 sets of ideas that we dislike the least, and then giving absolute power to the people who parrot those ideas. Those that aren't part of the elected party (department heads outside the cabinet) are also effectively unelected leaders and will continue to hold power after a new party is elected. What I want is a limit on absolute power, for anyone. Currently the state apparatus is a form of absolute power, and thus a magnet for the kinds of corruption we're talking about. I'd much rather we kept a balance of power between the economy, the individual and the state such that each has its own power and none can force the hand of another. But that's just idealism really, I just think that for now billionaires are the lesser evil compared to the state.

cyborgx7 8y ago
That is a very specific description of the american voting system. I am not american. I agree that the current models of democratic control are severly and fundamentally flawed. But it's frightening to me that you think giving the power to private Billionaires with no democratic legitimization instead is a better solution. This is what people mean when they say Capitalist Libertarianism is a form of Authoritarianism.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  I'm also not American, I'm British. We had a direct democratic vote very recently, which (regardless of whether you like the outcome or not) was surrounded by the most irrational propaganda I've ever seen, from both sides of the aisle. If you want more democracy, expect more of that. I'm also not a libertarian nor particularly a capitalist (I prefer syndicalism on a conceptual level), so your characterisation is both incorrect and reductionist. OK so if giving private citizens more power (though I'd phrase it as axing bad regulations) is "scary", what's the worst outcome? Compared to giving more power to the state? Because as far as I'm aware, almost all historical atrocities have been committed by states. The first three billionaires who jump into my head immediately (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos) pioneered personal computing, founded one of the most impactful charities in existence, vastly improved the portability of computing, and commoditised online shopping and started a private space agency. Can you think of anything billionaires have done that doesn't involve political corruption that is really really bad compared to the good that said individual has brought to the world? (without diving into the intricacies of whether people like Carl Icahn provide a net benefit, but I'm pretty against Wall Street and the public stock market anyway).