Is it just me or is distaste for Libertarianism contradictory to discordianism?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I don't know if the house and senate are the biggest problems really. Somehow I feel like the executive branch, not the POTUS directly, but all the executive organizations underneath, is a bigger issue. Theres only so much that congress can do (ie produce legislation). The follow through is up to the executive bureaus and associated organizations.

Well, overall I think the whole Federal government needs deconstructed and rebuilt. Not rebuilt as in start all over, but maybe 'reset' would be a better term. In the past 200+ years we've come a long way on some issues. We have fairer laws now than before, we understand that skin color and sexual organs are not pertinent when considering who should vote/have rights etc. all of that we can keep. Everything else should be reviewed. I think every law should be reexamined, and (IMO) every law should have a sunset period, so that we as a nation have to revisit it and determine if its still applicable, fair, useful or not.

If the government were trim, tried to behave responsibly, looked for what is best for citizens... I would be a huge supporter. But, just as libertarian philosophy doesn't account for how humans really behave, our current system doesn't account for how people in positions of power will really behave.

In my imaginary perfect system:

1. No elected official can serve more than 12 years.
2. Elected Officials will be paid the National Average Income. (Hotels, Cars, etc for business purposes can be expensed)
3. Any conviction of corruption with an elected official carries a mandatory Federal sentence.
4. Corporations cannot give money to candidates. Only individuals or non-profit groups can donate to a candidate.
5.  Lobbyists do not exist. Individuals and groups can speak with their representatives, try to promote their cause etc... but no commercial/professional lobbying groups at all. At best, maybe a non-profit sort of group that can educate individuals on how to promote their cause to political figures.

Laws:

1. Laws sunset unless they are reconsidered and pass.
2. Jury Nullification is taught in schools and juries are appraised of their rights before sitting on a case.
3. Unless the law relates to Interstate Commerce, National Defense, Civil/Human Rights, State Laws trump Federal Laws.
4. Federal money can be withheld from a State (based on #3) but only in related areas... If a state doesn't want to arrest stoners, then the Feds could withhold money set aside for Drug rehabilitation. They could not, however withhold money for roads or schools.


I think these ideas would make our system much less broken... not perfect, not completely free, not even guaranteed 100% satisfaction or your money back... just less broken than now.

One of the fundamental issues is that you have a bunch of citizens who want to live together as one, in happy harmony, and take care of one another.

Then you have a bunch of citizens who want to live in the middle of the woods and be left alone.

Some one has to be an arbiter to bridge those two, sizable and substantial camps. 

If you simply left it to the citizens, you might have even more gridlock than you already have. 

See, that's where we disagree.... IMO, the bunch of citizens should work and live together and be responsible as a social entity. The people in the woods that want to be left alone, should live in the woods and be left alone. People actively involved in a social system should be more responsible for that system, than someone who is not part of that social system. Obviously, all of us are part of a large social group (the nation) and even the loaners should help support that (they use roads and cops etc). But, beyond the basics, I think people should pay for what they use, or choose.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Well, overall I think the whole Federal government needs deconstructed and rebuilt. Not rebuilt as in start all over, but maybe 'reset' would be a better term.

Why?  The same problems would instantly reappear, because the problem isn't with the government.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Well, overall I think the whole Federal government needs deconstructed and rebuilt. Not rebuilt as in start all over, but maybe 'reset' would be a better term.

Why?  The same problems would instantly reappear, because the problem isn't with the government.

No, but after 200+ years of experiences, we might be able to finesse things a bit and at least get rid of some of the problems... other would appear, some old ones would still be around. But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't fix what we can.

Most Americans aren't driving a Model-T, most aren't driving a car from before the 80's and probably the majority are driving cars less than 20 years old.

Most Americans aren't using DOS, Windows 3.1, GEOS, or NextStep... they're using Windows XP, Vista, Linux or MacOS X.

Most Americans don't cook over an open fire for three meals a day. Most Americans don't have an Ice House, or Ice Box.

Yet, all Americans are still using a system that's 200+ years old and been patched repeatedly. A rework, rebuild, reinstall seems entirely reasonable to me.

[AFK]

One of the fundamental issues is that you have a bunch of citizens who want to live together as one, in happy harmony, and take care of one another.

Then you have a bunch of citizens who want to live in the middle of the woods and be left alone.

Some one has to be an arbiter to bridge those two, sizable and substantial camps. 

If you simply left it to the citizens, you might have even more gridlock than you already have. 

See, that's where we disagree.... IMO, the bunch of citizens should work and live together and be responsible as a social entity. The people in the woods that want to be left alone, should live in the woods and be left alone. People actively involved in a social system should be more responsible for that system, than someone who is not part of that social system. Obviously, all of us are part of a large social group (the nation) and even the loaners should help support that (they use roads and cops etc). But, beyond the basics, I think people should pay for what they use, or choose.

So, a drug abuser, before becoming a drug abuser, opts out of his taxes going towards services, such as mine, that help people who need drug treatment but don't have money to pay for it.  When he needs treatment, but doesn't have the money...then what?  

[Kai]

Well, overall I think the whole Federal government needs deconstructed and rebuilt. Not rebuilt as in start all over, but maybe 'reset' would be a better term.

Why?  The same problems would instantly reappear, because the problem isn't with the government.

No, but after 200+ years of experiences, we might be able to finesse things a bit and at least get rid of some of the problems... other would appear, some old ones would still be around. But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't fix what we can.

Most Americans aren't driving a Model-T, most aren't driving a car from before the 80's and probably the majority are driving cars less than 20 years old.

Most Americans aren't using DOS, Windows 3.1, GEOS, or NextStep... they're using Windows XP, Vista, Linux or MacOS X.

Most Americans don't cook over an open fire for three meals a day. Most Americans don't have an Ice House, or Ice Box.

Yet, all Americans are still using a system that's 200+ years old and been patched repeatedly. A rework, rebuild, reinstall seems entirely reasonable to me.

All those things are comforts you can convince people to buy, and make a lot of money for the people who are selling them.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

See, that's where we disagree.... IMO, the bunch of citizens should work and live together and be responsible as a social entity. The people in the woods that want to be left alone, should live in the woods and be left alone. People actively involved in a social system should be more responsible for that system, than someone who is not part of that social system. Obviously, all of us are part of a large social group (the nation) and even the loaners should help support that (they use roads and cops etc). But, beyond the basics, I think people should pay for what they use, or choose.

Translation:  The rich get the benefit of services, the poor die.

[AFK]

One more thing Rat:

You said "I think people should pay for what they use, or choose."

If that was the setup, you do realize a lot of people would choose to opt out of what they in fact use, right? 

[Cain]

Since employers benefit from a healthy, educated workforce, good transit links, a fair judicial system, a powerful police force etc (at least in the sense they profit from the current system), that would suggest they should in fact be paying a fair bit into it.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Just the fucking accounting would cost more than you'd save.

[Cain]

Well, yes.

Thats why I think progressive taxation is generally the way to go.  Hell, even Adam Smith made a decent case for that (of course, Smith was down with a lot of things modern libertarianism likes to gloss over, or pretend never happened.  Which makes The Wealth of Nations great trolling material.  Just quote it as something by Marx and watch them howl in fury).

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Well, yes.

Thats why I think progressive taxation is generally the way to go.  Hell, even Adam Smith made a decent case for that (of course, Smith was down with a lot of things modern libertarianism likes to gloss over, or pretend never happened.  Which makes The Wealth of Nations great trolling material.  Just quote it as something by Marx and watch them howl in fury).

Adam Smith is about the single most misquoted person in history.  I managed to plough through Wealth of Nations, and it bears precisely zero resemblance to what the libertarians portray it as.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

See, that's where we disagree.... IMO, the bunch of citizens should work and live together and be responsible as a social entity. The people in the woods that want to be left alone, should live in the woods and be left alone. People actively involved in a social system should be more responsible for that system, than someone who is not part of that social system. Obviously, all of us are part of a large social group (the nation) and even the loaners should help support that (they use roads and cops etc). But, beyond the basics, I think people should pay for what they use, or choose.

Translation:  The rich get the benefit of services, the poor die.

That bears no resemblance to what I just said. But whatever.

One more thing Rat:

You said "I think people should pay for what they use, or choose."

If that was the setup, you do realize a lot of people would choose to opt out of what they in fact use, right? 

Well if the setup were that single sentence, sure. One would think however, that the actual implementation would include more than a single sentence from a internet forum, which might actually address the details of fair use and paying for what you use.

Or we would just use a single sentence and draw all of our conclusions from that. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

That bears no resemblance to what I just said. But whatever.

But it is the result of what you said.

[AFK]

One more thing Rat:

You said "I think people should pay for what they use, or choose."

If that was the setup, you do realize a lot of people would choose to opt out of what they in fact use, right? 

Well if the setup were that single sentence, sure. One would think however, that the actual implementation would include more than a single sentence from a internet forum, which might actually address the details of fair use and paying for what you use.

Or we would just use a single sentence and draw all of our conclusions from that. 

Look, you're the one who said "use or choose".  My point is that there is a significant difference and that it would have to be one or the other.  If you give someone the option to opt out based upon what they use or to opt out based upon what they choose.  A lot of people will pick the latter, and a lot of them will choose to opt out of services they indeed use. 

In other words, why don't you clarify, do you want it based upon what they use or what they choose?  Which one is it? 

[Cain]

Well, yes.

Thats why I think progressive taxation is generally the way to go.  Hell, even Adam Smith made a decent case for that (of course, Smith was down with a lot of things modern libertarianism likes to gloss over, or pretend never happened.  Which makes The Wealth of Nations great trolling material.  Just quote it as something by Marx and watch them howl in fury).

Adam Smith is about the single most misquoted person in history.  I managed to plough through Wealth of Nations, and it bears precisely zero resemblance to what the libertarians portray it as.

I feel sorry for him.  The Adam Smith Institute, which has done more than nearly anyone this side of the Atlantic to perpetuate that misinterpretation, was actually founded by three members of my University.  I nearly managed to corner one of them at a meeting once, but he got away due to a well-timed drop of a glass of sherry, distracting me.