Antilibertarianism

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

How the fuck do you be free trade and anti union?

Employers can do whatever they want, but employees should be restricted?  You're not a libertarian, you're a fucking corporatist.

This. And our current system is corporatist, which is anti-capitalist, so DL basically doesn't want anything to change.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Corporations are the new nation-state.
or to describe its trophic relation more clearly:

> means farms
\\ means infects

corporation > govt and people
government > people and corp
corp \\ govt
people \\ corp and govt (in theory, but usually they just submit to what is expected from them)
To make this system work for the people we need to get the corps out of the govt and convince the people to use the power they have (in effect: get a spine)

Ban lobbying, campaign donations over $5, and corporate subsidies. It'll never happen, but it would trigger huge changes.

[Elder Iptuous]

there obviously has to be changes to the dynamic between corporations and our elected officials, but would simply banning lobbying be a good thing, let alone be feasible?

it is my understanding that lobbying simply refers to having individuals whose job it is to convince elected officials to vote one way or another.  is this correct?
there doesn't seem to be anything inherently wrong with that except that the lobbyists are using the strong arm of their campaign donations to unduly influence them, right?

and campaign donations don't seem to have anything inherently wrong with them, either, except that there is an incontrovertible link between money spent and voter response, right?

so it seems that the election process is the issue, and the campaign finance, and lobbying is the symptom, to me...

what are the ideas floating out there to break the link between money spent and votes won?
there's got to be something that can address the root of the problem....

[Nephew Twiddleton]

there obviously has to be changes to the dynamic between corporations and our elected officials, but would simply banning lobbying be a good thing, let alone be feasible?

it is my understanding that lobbying simply refers to having individuals whose job it is to convince elected officials to vote one way or another.  is this correct?
there doesn't seem to be anything inherently wrong with that except that the lobbyists are using the strong arm of their campaign donations to unduly influence them, right?

and campaign donations don't seem to have anything inherently wrong with them, either, except that there is an incontrovertible link between money spent and voter response, right?

so it seems that the election process is the issue, and the campaign finance, and lobbying is the symptom, to me...

what are the ideas floating out there to break the link between money spent and votes won?
there's got to be something that can address the root of the problem....

Make the money less of an issue. The internet is a potential goldmine for campaigning, and can cost little to nothing if done right.
There is a strong link between campaign war-chest and victory. But it's hard to judge that sometimes. Obama had a shit ton of money to work with, but that was because a shit ton of average citizens donated a little money to his campaign. That's how he was able to put out that infomercial before the election. That was an interesting turn of events. So, using that example, what happened? He must have been popular enough at that point, so did he actually need to do that? Or did that essentially solidify his victory? His election was a strange one. All factors seemed to guarantee him victory. He came out of nowhere, beat Hillary, McCain ended up shooting himself in the foot picking Palin (Chaos in action- Palin is now a respected spokestool for the right as a result) and, well, coming across as a crotchety old man who could keel over at anytime, etc, etc...

Back to the point--how can we make that sort of thing the norm, getting more people involved and more people donating, regardless of party or candidate? That will make the politician more beholden to the constituency and not the corporations.

Or, as I suggested earlier, we could put a flat rate upper-limit on how much campaign money can be spent to help level the playing field for everyone and make donations from corporations less relevant.

[Requia ☣]

Not nearly as big of a link between money spent and voter response as people think.  You do need a certain amount of money to win, but more money doesn't help that much (in repeat congressional races between the same opponents they have to spend twice as much money to gain 1% of the vote).

Convincing politicians of that though...

As for lobbying, it means anybody who tries to change a politicians mind.  (Jenne does lobbying, and doesn't get payed for it, Technically Roger's letters to Harry Reid are lobbying).  Professional lobbyists are something of a problem, because they have access to politicians that regular people don't, and even the best possible politician isn't going to do well when he only ever hears one sides arguments.

[Requia ☣]

Also, its not corporate donations that do it, corporations have a 5k limit just like private citizens.

It's the 5k once from each of the 1400 goldman sachs senior partners that does it.

[Vene]

I'm wondering if it would be better to have campaign funds granted by the government, where you can use those funds however you want, but you can't use any other money than that. I'm just not sure how this would be implemented in such a way that makes it possible for new parties to form as well as making it so that there's not 20 different candidates who entered just to take the money and keep it for themselves.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I'm wondering if it would be better to have campaign funds granted by the government, where you can use those funds however you want, but you can't use any other money than that. I'm just not sure how this would be implemented in such a way that makes it possible for new parties to form as well as making it so that there's not 20 different candidates who entered just to take the money and keep it for themselves.

You could do it in such a way that you bill the government directly instead of taking the money.

[Requia ☣]

You'd still have to run a primary on your own dime that way, unless you want the government to foot the bill for every crackpot that declares they want to run.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

You'd still have to run a primary on your own dime that way, unless you want the government to foot the bill for every crackpot that declares they want to run.

Ah, but you do have to have enough signatures to run.

Besides, how many of said crackpots are already able to run on their own dime?

[Vene]

If the political system corrupts everybody who goes through it, I'm wondering what the merits might be of a completely random leader selection process that is repeated every couple years or so. Maybe something like jury duty. I mean, the general public does contain all sorts of schmucks that should probably never be in power, but at least the results should be entertaining.

Wait, why am I even posting this?

the greeks experimented with a system in which the senators would be chosen by lottery.

They thought that elections tend to select a certain type of people, and that group of people can't possibly represent the general pubic. Maybe it's better to have a random sampling of elected leaders, thereby ensuring that the government is a reflection of the populace.

The consequence was that that even your idiot neighbor could get elected - you know, the guy who you don't trust to drive a car, let alone make high-impact societally affecting decisions? So they tossed out that one.

[emphasis added]

I am quoting from earlier in this thread to offer a thought on the bolded selection. Michele Bachmann was elected, she can make high-impact societally affecting decisions. I wouldn't trust her to drive a car.

That is all.

[Triple Zero]

Life is not "every man for themselves", and it never has been.

Ah, but, in my opinion, it should be.

Then stop fucking complaining so much and DO something about it.

Like moving to Somalia.

Jeez, if you're all about self realization and freedom and choice and every man for himself, what the fuck are you still doing in that country of yours? Can't you take care of your own NEEDS, man? There are vast regions of the world where you have no government (to speak of) and don't need to care for nobody.

Some policies of libertarianism are non-democratic and amoral. Personally, I'm more of a free trade, anti-union sort of guy. You could probably tell that. But I like my corporations. Especially the amoral ones.

You probably mean "immoral". And even then you're wrong. By definition, libertarianism also comes with a system of ethics and therefore in the point of view of the libertarian, its policies must be moral. Duh.

Aren't untested theories always wishful thinking?

No, sometimes they also come with reasoning that holds up in a logical argument. I tend to prefer those, and ridicule the other.

I'm merely talking about what I'd personally prefer the government to be like, for my own selfish gain. I'm not talking about what system would work best for you, or Jack, or Jill, or Rupert. If I thought we were talking about systems that actually work, I wouldn't be advocating libertarianism. It is just an interesting theoretical concept (i.e. wishful thinking). I also talk about other things that don't necessarily exist but would be cool if they did, such as superpowers or the zombie apocalypse.

Except that even fictious things like superpowers or the zombie apocalypse somewhat hold up to their own internal logic.

While a healthcare system simply cannot be both efficient and completely privatized. It's one of those things that is simply not fit for a capitalist market. And, as you (are supposed to) know, when a market is inefficient, you are simply burning resources and nobody profits (not even the big corps), in a way not even Eris could say "Oh. Well, then stop.".

[Reginald Ret]

While a healthcare system simply cannot be both efficient and completely privatized. It's one of those things that is simply not fit for a capitalist market. And, as you (are supposed to) know, when a market is inefficient, you are simply burning resources and nobody profits (not even the big corps), in a way not even Eris could say "Oh. Well, then stop.".

I'm willing to bet 1 euro that privatized healthcare will be more efficient than socialized healthcare. Ofcourse; they get to be so efficient because they don't try to heal the poor.
Owait you said healthcare system and i kept reading it as medical practice. nevermind. One of the requirements of a healthcare system is that the poor get helped too right?

[the last yatto]

Maybe a mixture of lottery and require some sort IQ approval test before voting would work.

ditch the rest, it  sounds too much like student body council

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Unions are very libertarian, they are the free market of employees banding together, in order to meet the needs of the employee market. "The Market" doesn't just mean the Stock Market, or the Corporate Retail Market... it means the market of needs, wants and desires of some group of people... employees, just as equally as employers have needs and wants. The Union helps the employees to get 'what the market can bear' from their employers. Libertarians that see only one side of the coin, promote a bizarre and risky philosophy.

As for the connection between corporations and politicians... There's not a lot we can do right now, in America anyway. The latest Supreme Court decision has seriously hampered any move to cripple Corporate influence over the people and the politics of the US. That decision is of course based on the horrific decision that somehow Corporations are citizens or at least get all the rights of citizens. That sonuvabitch idea needs to die first. Forcing public finance would help, but recent elections have shown us that all the players choose to play where they get the most money.

One thing that might help is a change to the basic election laws that were put in place in the early 1900's. For example, Dem and GOP primary winners are guaranteed top billing on every ballot. All other parties have to go through various hoops to get their names on the ballot. If all parties had to play by the same rules, it may help matters some.

The biggest issue is how to preserve maximum freedom while constricting instances where such freedom is abused. The Libertarian party tends to err by having no way to manage these abuses. The current parties in power tend to err by failing to preserve freedom any chance they get.

I'm not sure which is worse.