Antilibertarianism

[Requia ☣]

For the more social benefits bit, maybe, the government likes to screw those up in truly unimaginable ways, but they do sometimes work.

For more corporate regulation, more regulation on people in power.  Who the hell is going to enforce those?  The same assholes who refused to enforce mercury emission standards until congress relaxed them by a factor of 7.  The same assholes who never arrest cops for making illegal searches, even though there's been a law on the books against violation of constitutional rights under color of law since the 70s.

You need to either convince people to elect different assholes (I have no idea how to do this, but it has been done before), or change the system in a way that different assholes end up in charge.

Different policies aren't going to make things worse, but I can't see them making things much better either.

[Telarus]

"Right NOW, 4 nypd shitbags walked right past me obviously smoking weed in the park to arrest a homeless guy for sleeping." - @yttrx, via Twitter

[Kai]

But

Different policies, same assholes running the show.

As things stand we are actively tolerating the current system.  That says to me that any improvements to the current, eminently tolerable system would make it more tolerable.

Just saying.

Yes.

[Vene]

Different policies, same assholes running the show.

Assholes will always run the show.

[Requia ☣]

Of course, the question is what kind of assholes are doing it.  The current crop of assholes in the federal government are much preferable (to me) than say, President Hayes.

[Reginald Ret]

How about the system we have right now, except more social benefits and more regulation on individuals and corporations that wield massive power?

This was the goal of the OP.
Remember people: no anti govt arguments allowed ITT.
I know, it sucks. Think of it as an ARG where the initiation of force is good if done by elected representatives or their servants.
Go play in another playground if you dont want to play this game.


brainstorm:
goals:
- Quality control on the type of asshole that gets power.
- Limits on the amount of power one person or group can accumulate.
-


methods:                                                                       problems:
- rules and regulations.                                                  how do you enforce this without getting stuck in qui custodiet ipsos custodes?
- culture hacking
- education
- indoctrination/propaganda
-


notes:
We want to make a stable self correcting system, there is no point in creating a system that is sensitive to change.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think the overall problem with the US government is that it's changed the basic imprint to its state of consciousness (if we consider the US as a memetic entity).

So let's consider the 2 circuit grid idea where First Circuit = Advance/Retreat or seeing the world as Safe/Not Safe. Looking at the intention of the people who designed the US, they appeared to perceive the rest of the nations as equal trade partners (free trade with all, entangling alliances with none). So we might say that they saw the world as a safe place for their new country to interact with. This has changed over the past few centuries and now, not only does the US tend to see all nations as competition, allies or enemies, but it also sees its own citizens as potential enemies. Our national imprint has changed from 'Advance'/'This is a Safe place' to 'Retreat'/'The world is big and scary!'

The second circuit 'Top Dog/Bottom Dog' or 'Dominance/Submission' seems pretty heavily imprinted with the Top Dog/Dominant sort of mindset.

According to the grid then, Retreat/Not Safe + Dominance = Area of Hostile Strength (The Tyrant) I'm ok, you're not ok. I give the orders here!
Whereas the original intent Advance/Safe + Dominance = Area of Friendly Strength (The Good Parent) I'm ok, you're ok. It's safe out here.

It seems to me that a government would do far better internationally and within its own borders if the imprint were more the latter than the former. The arguments of Libertarians and Republicans (for small government) and Democrats and Liberals (for useful government) all seem to boil down to this singular issue.

Small Gov.  - We can't trust the government, because the government will screw us when it gets the chance... besides, I don't want it telling me what to do about everything in my life.

The small government proponents are fighting the 'Tyrant' imprint. The Libertarian is fighting the 'Hostile Strength' of the government.

Useful Gov. - The government should be helping people, supporting its citizens in any way that it can.

The useful government types are pushing for Friendly Strength, where the government says to its citizens "I'm OK, you're OK, let's work together".

So the issue lies in the mindset of the memetic entity (ie the mindset of all Americans on the concept of Government). The more afraid the individual Americans are of the 'world' (and of their own terrorized home), the more of a Tyrant the government becomes (its not safe, we must be safe!). The more of a tyrant the government becomes, the less the people can trust it... meaning that they become more afraid of the government and the government responds to that fear, by becoming more afraid of its citizens and acting in a more tyrannical fashion.

Until the government can be changed from an entity that is imprinted with Hostile Strength, things will not change.

Of course, there are a lot of other moving parts in a government and this isn't the only issue, but it seems to be a key cause of many issues. The Drug War, The War on Terror, Universal Healthcare,  Taxes, etc etc etc all seem to be prone to flaws predicated on the government being scared and dominant in its behavior.

[BabylonHoruv]

How about the system we have right now, except more social benefits and more regulation on individuals and corporations that wield massive power?

This was the goal of the OP.
Remember people: no anti govt arguments allowed ITT.
I know, it sucks. Think of it as an ARG where the initiation of force is good if done by elected representatives or their servants.
Go play in another playground if you dont want to play this game.


brainstorm:
goals:
- Quality control on the type of asshole that gets power.
- Limits on the amount of power one person or group can accumulate.
-


methods:                                                                       problems:
- rules and regulations.                                                  how do you enforce this without getting stuck in qui custodiet ipsos custodes?
- culture hacking
- education
- indoctrination/propaganda
-


notes:
We want to make a stable self correcting system, there is no point in creating a system that is sensitive to change.

Maybe some tinkering to make things less two party?  instant runoff voting is one option, or a system where voters vote for the party instead of the candidate, and parties get whatever percent of the popular vote as their percentage of representatives.

[Reginald Ret]

I wasn't thinking of a two party system specifically.
Go look up the different ways other countries depolarize politics.
We don't have to do everything ourselves :P

[BabylonHoruv]

I wasn't thinking of a two party system specifically.
Go look up the different ways other countries depolarize politics.
We don't have to do everything ourselves :P

I'm a fan of the German system actually.  They don't allow one party to have a majority.  They also have a pretty decent economy, fairly good social services, and more freedom than we do in most respects.

[navkat]

I like my rights. I like rights, and I think we should all have a lot of them. For this, the current political system would call me a libertarian.
This is a problem. I've seen libertarian arguments, and I don't agree with any of them. Sure, freedom is nice, but is the shrinking of government really the answer? It seems that the current libertarian school of thought is based on a false dichotomy: the only answer to problems involving authority is to either shrink or increase government. This just doesn't make sense to me.
I don't think anybody here likes corporations any more than I do. I don' t think any of us want corporations to have any more power over us than they already do. Now, I won't say that the government as it is is doing a good job of keeping them in check, but at least there are some laws in place to hold CEOs accountable for their actions. Personally, I think it makes sense to pass a set of laws placing greater restriction on powerful corporations and what they can do. This is one example of how increased government can be applied in a positive manner.
Another reason not to decrease government in its totality is simple, and Doktor Howl brought it up recently in another thread: Services.
Roads. Running water. Electricity. A public education system(as horribly incompetent as its employees are). I could go on.

Problem: We are losing our rights.
Problem: More than one entity wants to take them away.
Problem: We like our services, though.

Let's discuss a solution in this thread. Without the anti-government libertarian crap, if you please. The problem is not that the system exists, but that its design is flawed and the employees are corrupt and incompetent.

This is why I'm a Libertarian Socialist: "Burn it ALL down," I say.

No seriously: seriously limit the powers of central banks and governments, give The People domain over corporations and handle all the fuckups and socialized needs on a local level.

The federal government's job is to bomb the shit out of nazis and Koreans, build interstates and aircraft carriers and to make sure no one's hanging niggers or burning the jews or arresting the guests at my abortion tupperware party. Other than that, I'd really like it if they'd fuck off and let me do drugs, shoot guns, doctor-shop and marry queers in peace.

[DeadLucky]

This is why I'm a Libertarian Socialist: "Burn it ALL down," I say.

No seriously: seriously limit the powers of central banks and governments, give The People domain over corporations and handle all the fuckups and socialized needs on a local level.

Amen. Except I don't call myself a Libertarian Socialist. I'm more of a libertarian (little l here) conservative. Sure, regulate banks and utilities. That's good. Even provide public education. That's pretty much necessary. But social security? Universal health care? How can you compromise libertarianism and socialism? Socialism is, in essence, huge government that takes your money and gives you "free" shit. I'd prefer a tiny government that lets me keep my money and allows me to go without such services if I don't want 'em. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the term "Libertarian Socialist."

The federal government's job is to bomb the shit out of nazis and Koreans, build interstates and aircraft carriers and to make sure no one's hanging niggers or burning the jews or arresting the guests at my abortion tupperware party. Other than that, I'd really like it if they'd fuck off and let me do drugs, shoot guns, doctor-shop and marry queers in peace.

Incidentally, while the federal government should certainly be in charge of the military (I'd rather not have that completely in the hands of a corporation /shudder), I'm of the belief that bombing Koreans and Nazis is secondary to the security of people within our nation. We need to get our own shit in line before we fuck other countries' shit up. Not to mention, the whole Democracy, Or Else concept is just a little ironic.

So what does that make me? A libertarian isolationist commercialist? I'm not sure, either.

Oh, and before I forget, the whole "Sue anyone who you possibly can" thing needs to go away. Fuck that. Suck it up. Its just a little bit of coffee in your lap, of course the fucking coffee is hot. You're obviously just greedy and lazy, and therefore looking for any excuse to make your problems someone elses' and capitalize on it.

[/rant]

- DeadLucky

Oh, also, I'm new here. Hi.

[LMNO]

They don't take your money to give you free shit.


They take your money to help support the very system that allowed you to make that money in the first place.

[DeadLucky]

If the US were socialist, I still haven't gone to a doctor in a while, and the healthcare system certainly wouldn't be supporting me. I don't need it. I've made my money without it. I also have made my money without receiving any unemployment, disability, welfare, or social security checks. I don't expect to ever get any money in such a manner from the government.

Incidentally, my taxes pay for such programs, however. Its all shit, and it is free for the end user.

No offence to those who are reliant upon such programs, but I consider myself a little to good to be begging for scraps from the table of wealth and excesses. Call it a Greyfaced attitude of snobbery if you must. The American Dream is no longer to go from poverty or wealth, but to collect unemployment whilst working under the table, yet spending excessive amounts of money on expensive flashy rims and plasma screen televisions and stay in poverty.

Now, if you're talking about taking my money for infrastructure, police, education, the military, you're making sense. However, that's not what I'm concerned about.

- DeadLucky

[LMNO]

Well, personally, I actually give a shit about my fellow human beings, and I understand that our society is made up of the haves and the have-nots; and where the have-nots are not just screwed over daily, they are actively prevented from succeeding.

So, you can take your vaguely racist economic theories and cram them up your ass.