4 ms·

I'm not sold on her libertarian perspective >>people can only pay for the packages they'll use i just can't think of government as a timewarner package. Well, e

I'm not sold on her libertarian perspective >>people can only pay for the packages they'll use i just can't think of government as a timewarner package. Well, everyone I know is doing well, so I guess I won't fund programs for the poor. And everyone I know has a degree so no need for me to contribute towards education. It's a viewpoint that seemingly does not take into account the less priviledged at all. I do wonder if, in an entirely libertarian world, would things work out for the better? I somehow doubt it but you can see that the ideal is that employers will need educated laborers so they'll end up footing for the education bills, etc etc. I think I'll stick to my idealism of a policy based on rational perspectives and compassion in order to ensure the greatest good for the greatest numbers and promote a strong nation and world from the base up. That being said, the concept is super neat and I do like that.

jarradhope 11y ago
They don't take their idea far enough. You can remove representational democracy and voting from the core. Instead replacing it with independent policymaking and voluntary agreements of smart contracts, you implicitly 'vote' by your use of a contract. Common Law in a real sense becomes the most popular contracts for any given period. One-size-fits all policies won't be a thing in the future and we will have very different cultures operating under very different laws occupying the same physical space. It's not about utopia but it certainly makes things far more liquid, transparent and cryptographically secure (unbreakable promises). It opens governance right up for innovation so we can at least iterate faster in a voluntary manner.
- codyb 11y ago
  Perhaps this is true but when one Buffet, Walton, Gate, or Adelson controls about as much of the pie as a hundred million people I can almost guarantee no one will really like the results. 67 people own as much as 3.5 billion people at this point [0] (and that's Forbes saying that). I think that would be the greatest barrier to pure Libertarianism being a positive contribution towards humanity. [0] - http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesinsights/2014/03/25/the-67-people-as-wealthy-as-the-worlds-poorest-3-5-billion/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesinsights/2014/03/25/the-67...
  - zo1 11y ago
    This line of thinking does not only apply to a Libertarian form of government (or lack thereof). Influential and wealthy individuals control power, and I think it's incredibly naive to think that Democracy or any other form of government out there is completely immune to that. Note how I don't single-out wealthy individuals. Our society is run by influential people, the kind that can sway opinion through oration and manipulation. They will simply convince more people to use their single, noble vote on what they want.
    - codyb 11y ago
      Certainly, I never made point otherwise.
- cortesoft 11y ago
  And what happens when one party fails to honor the contract? Is it up to everyone to enforce their own contracts?
  - zo1 11y ago
    The sky is the limit implementation-wise. Put yourself in their shoes, as an engineer/problem-solver, and see if you can figure it out in a decent manner. Personally, I'm partial to this concept being a good solution to the problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organizatio...

jarradhope 11y ago

They don't take their idea far enough. You can remove representational democracy and voting from the core. Instead replacing it with independent policymaking and voluntary agreements of smart contracts, you implicitly 'vote' by your use of a contract. Common Law in a real sense becomes the most popular contracts for any given period. One-size-fits all policies won't be a thing in the future and we will have very different cultures operating under very different laws occupying the same physical space. It's not about utopia but it certainly makes things far more liquid, transparent and cryptographically secure (unbreakable promises). It opens governance right up for innovation so we can at least iterate faster in a voluntary manner.

codyb 11y ago
Perhaps this is true but when one Buffet, Walton, Gate, or Adelson controls about as much of the pie as a hundred million people I can almost guarantee no one will really like the results. 67 people own as much as 3.5 billion people at this point [0] (and that's Forbes saying that). I think that would be the greatest barrier to pure Libertarianism being a positive contribution towards humanity. [0] - http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesinsights/2014/03/25/the-67-people-as-wealthy-as-the-worlds-poorest-3-5-billion/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesinsights/2014/03/25/the-67...
- zo1 11y ago
  This line of thinking does not only apply to a Libertarian form of government (or lack thereof). Influential and wealthy individuals control power, and I think it's incredibly naive to think that Democracy or any other form of government out there is completely immune to that. Note how I don't single-out wealthy individuals. Our society is run by influential people, the kind that can sway opinion through oration and manipulation. They will simply convince more people to use their single, noble vote on what they want.
  - codyb 11y ago
    Certainly, I never made point otherwise.
cortesoft 11y ago
And what happens when one party fails to honor the contract? Is it up to everyone to enforce their own contracts?
- zo1 11y ago
  The sky is the limit implementation-wise. Put yourself in their shoes, as an engineer/problem-solver, and see if you can figure it out in a decent manner. Personally, I'm partial to this concept being a good solution to the problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organizatio...