I know that lots of folks on Steemit are libertarian-minded but I'd be interested in hearing how you characterize your economic philosophy. I explained my views in this call from a viewer.
Bitcoin and lending platforms are made to fail and when they do that's when the economic colapse will happen. That's why Invest in some altcoins like BAT, verge and cardano.
In theory Libertarianism sounds like a good philosophy – but, in my opinion, it doesn't factor in the human condition (i.e. greed, ego) therefore it cannot do what Government should be doing: protecting its people. I believe there are some things the government has no business controlling (i.e. forced pregnancies) and there are some things that have no business being for-profit (i.e. health care). I am not sure what to label myself other than left leaning.
The solution is a government made of good people, at least to some extent. Easier to achieve that an entire society of good people. Still very, very hard, of course. Some societies may never achieve it. Needs tons of patience, cultural evolution, quotidian effort and time, but not impossible. (E.g. Iceland)
I would be for libertarianism in a society where every last (well, almost) person was compassionate and altruistic. Till then, good governance - with minimal intervention in only the areas that need it - is the ideal solution. One rarely seen, of course.
Yes indeed. There are some people who are responsible enough to make sound judgement therefore can be trusted with SOME power. The States, unfortunately, is currently experiencing the dark side of human nature: many people currently in power do not seem evolved enough to handle unregulated freedom let alone power.
The solution is a government made of good people, at least to some extent.
The solution is transparency, each and every time. You can't expect a position of power not to be exploited by bad people unless you make it very difficult to get away with wrongdoing.
Countries with relatively little corruption and crime did not get that way because they're inhabited by superior people. The got like that by having long-standing traditions of distributed power structures. The cultural evolution that you speak of is part of it but it is entirely enabled by the "vertical of power" being low and flat, allowing for checks and balances. If conditions remain that way, it fosters honesty because it is easier to be successful that way. But the risk of backsliding is always there.
Anarchy. I don't believe in taxes, but still would like to see a basic income through Natural Resources shares (Natural Resources are our common inheritance and must be shared)
Free market for everything else, with only guiding rule the principle of non-aggression towards people, property and the environment.
I'm an anarchist at heart but also see online direct democracy (liquid democracy with forums replacing congress) as something I could live with. with at least 90%+ consensus among all citizens for any rule to be approved. Anarchy requires 100% consensus but I doubt that will ever be possible unless in very tight nit communities.
only in my dreams for now. Unfortunately every single corner of this planet is occupied by an armed tyrannical government.
Liberland (I'm sure you've heard) may obtain some small territory in former Yugoslavia to experiment libertarianism. I hope some day an Anarchy nation could also be formed, problem again is where. Btw you should interview Vít Jedlička president of Liberland on your programme if you haven't already.
The only way I could imagine (and it isn't hard to imagine) is a state whose main goal is to render itself obsolete by encoraging us to create strong and self sustainable communities and basically only serving as a helpful resource. This could lead to the formation of autonomous zones where people could experiment with whatever kind of ideas they'd like outside of the law that everyone is following in the rest of the country. In those communities, we'd have a chance to see what human nature looks like under a variety of different circumstances.
I would like for us to adopt a gift economy to the greatest extent possible, but I realize we have a long way to go. In my lifetime I hope to see pay-what-you-want become less fringe and more supported by the mainstream.
Nope. It hasn't been tried. Yet, is that a reason to keep trying the same things over and over again? Is that a reason to keep having the same arguments that have already occurred for more than a century and not learn the lessons from the outcomes of those discussions and experiments?
I tend to believe in Anarchy as my Utopian goal. Not Anarchy in the Chaos bent but rather in what it really means. From Anarchos meaning No Rulers. Noone with the right to tell others how they must live. There can still be naturally occurring leaders you can choose to voluntarily follow or not follow as time suits you and depending on the task/purpose. Yet a leader is not the same as a ruler.
However, I do try to be realistic. I do not believe the world is ready for Anarchy. We have some human nature problems that are great at corrupting ANY system no matter how great it sounds. The only way to counter human nature is with education and giving people the tools to notice those things and resit them. The problem is the education systems seem to be removing those tools at a steady pace. It leaves the populace largely emotionally driven rather than rationally. It turns most topics into something akin to a religion with how intractable people are. It leaves a population that has forgotten that not only is okay to be wrong occasionally, it is an important part of learning. The tool that is lacking is critical thinking, and particularly the ability to identify and notice the large amounts of logical fallacies that are used in almost every discussion. A lot of appeal to emotion, appeal to popularity, appeal to authority, and appeal to the stone fallacies. Being able to critically think gives the tools for people of disagreeing points of view to still be able to work together. Without it, it tends to lead to intollerance and one trying to destroy the other.
This is not an environment Anarchy would do well. Honestly, it is not an environment that ultimately any ideology will do well in other than for the short term.
We need to be willing to try new things. If they fail. Learn from it. Adjust. We need to stop recycling the same ideas and same systems and expect a different outcome.
We also need to stop WHAT IFing to death things that have not been tried. Some things we may not be able to see other options until we at least try them. Does the new thing have to be anarchy? No. Yet it should be new, rather than being stuck on the hamster wheel repeating the same crap over and over that has been done in history.
I choose to target critical thinking as the windmill I tilt at. Why? I don't see most ideologies working in the long run unless most of our population becomes skilled at critical thinking.
I believe in freedom. I endorse voluntarism.
Free Market Capitalism only remains Free Market until the government steps in. All aspects of monopolies and such people try to lay at the feet of Free Market actually seem to involve government interaction either in the form of laws, restrictions from competition, etc. Do they happen yes? Yet, I haven't been able to find examples where that happened for longer than a short period before the market corrected that didn't persist without the assistance of government.
Furthermore socialism and communism basically both become ultimate forms of monopoly. Socialism is cronyism to it's core. The thing that corrupts capitalism is cronyism. It also impacts communism. Could any of those ideologies work? Maybe. Yet that same human nture problem can corrupt any ideology. That is what I was getting at.
I don't believe I have the right to tell you or anyone else how they should live.
I also don't believe other people have the right to tell me how I should live.
Quantity of people is irrelevant. There is no magic number where force suddenly becomes acceptable.
In practice, I would point you to another term of poly-centric law and poly-centric governance. In some respect I'd say that we work within a somewhat poly-centric legal system in the abstract but when you zoom in to a local level it is still based off the monopoly of a territorial claim. It is not too far fetched to see how poly-centric law works today, but to move to the truest form is not in practice, but in effect would offer a market for governance. I would label myself as a "Libertarian" to most people I speak with but if were really talking I'd identify as an Anarchist. But Why should I and a majority of like-minded people get to tell a minority their government cant pay into a 'universal healthcare' if they want? and likewise (and more reality based) should I have the majority tell me I have to pay into a 'universal healthcare' government. What if we didn't vote for people (with power for a timespan) and instead payed them directly. Well the idea is that you'd pay your government truly voluntarily and receive it's benefits, and I would to mine. And where these two governments agree on things they form collations like lets say to fund a Parks department (So I can still have nice hiking trails) and where our two disagree with other governments like lets say i.e. (National Conservative Government) who pays for a Department of Defense (which is offensive) and outlawing it's own citizenry abortions We'd have no coalition, and both our citizenry of your and my government pay no for their war (and if that were the case like with the overarching unpopular "Iraq War' the funds collected by the "Governments /Parties/" would not be able too, or at the very least I would have to pay for the military who invades and nation builds foreign soil.
I'm rambling, but how would it work in practice, just like now except more market effects (and Markets for Governance is the most critical one which is monopolized) And most libertarian types will point to the closest historic examples as mentioned like medieval Iceland and Catalonia (Spanish Civil War times, and was a Left-Anarchism)
It would be great to achieve 90%, but most places are far from it. 70% would be a huge improvement. Society’s are trending to change, but most are afraid of change. My prediction is that decisions will continue to be closer and closer to 50/50. Many times a poor decision is better than no decision, so this is quiet troubling!
I love consentual iterations, and hate all forms of coercion. And all governments are based on coercion and brute force. So I consider myself to be a libertarian.
I love consentual iterations, and hate all forms of coercion. And all governments are based on coercion and brute force. So I consider myself to be a libertarian.
Well, I guess I'm going with no matter how many times you vote on my rights I still don't think you get to decide them. That includes what I do with my money, my life, my marriage, my genitals, my commerce, my time, my kids, and generally speaking "my lawn."
Your regulations basically put a limit on my private authority to act in whatever way I wish so long as no harm and most specifically meaning property damage or physical harm is done to another.
The idea of taking money from me to fund products you and fellow voters believe in through the use and threat of force isn't in the best interest of freedom loving people. Combine that with governments use those powers with selfish malicious intent all the time, and you'll find my attitude change from this is bad and immoral to this is extremely harmful to all peaceful inhabitants of the planet and endangers all of us.
Going with "highly-woke ,market-driven, free and emancipated human."
How are people without means going to get access to healthcare provided by said robots? What difference does it make whether or not the doctor is a robot?
When you said, "Your regulations basically put a limit on my private authority to act in whatever way I wish so long as no harm and most specifically meaning property damage or physical harm is done to another." It made me think, this person should come to California right now. Regulations that have kept folks from clearing brush, bushes, and while providing no water and restricting water usage, has brought us the Thomas Fire. Almost 300k acres burned and still the only reason they're calling containment it because it's burning to the ocean. The old timers have been telling us for decades that the ridiculous regulations on the people of the State of California would lead to just such a disaster. A fire that jumps all lines, burns to the ocean...Can we build a couple of dams please? I've no need for a bullet train from SF to Chowchilla, but water would be nice...I'll leave my comments about Governor Moonbeam for another post =0)
Cooperative agorism as a means of creating those new institutions that will replace our current form of government - the centralized state - with voluntary and mutuality beneficial contracts.
I'd like for us to have a society that is just a society. More choice for those that want it and and dedicated work to establish market based solutions to accute poverty, unemployment and other sudden catastrophes.
Free markets utilized to the best of the ability of real human beings.
I don't know what exactly all these Scandinavians have as a government/economic system. Would be nice if you could explain that further. I heard Kyle from Secular Talk giving the same answer.
I am generally for smaller economic units. Small government in a way that your most local decisions should have the highest priority not the lowest.
I think every small unit can then define how much socialism they want. I am in favor of public transport, water, garbage, healthcare/emergency service and communication systems against most kinds of welfare and charities, but in favor of basic income. With "public" I mean completely state owned industry btw.
All Nordic countries have market economies. The share of small businesses of all economic activity is relatively small. Large corporations generate most of the GDP along with public services. Labor union membership is nearly universal and collective bargaining with employer's unions is the norm. It is common for trade unions, employer's unions and the government to engage in regular tripartite negotiations that tie together public fiscal policy and wages. Labor unions and their central organizations and the Social Democratic parties in each country have very close ties and accusations of illicit forms of fundraising crop up regularly. Correspondingly, employer's unions have close ties with the right-wing pro-business parties in each country.
All have mixed public/private health care systems. There are public health clinics but most working people have general health care paid for them by their employees. The public health care sector runs municipal hospitals in large cities, provincial central hospitals and university hospitals that provide the most advanced/specialized care. Public clinics and hospitals charge nominal fees from their patients. It is fairly common for working people to buy health insurance packages for their families but these are fairly cheap as they do not need to cover anything expensive. Most people purchase them to be able to go to private clinics instead of the public clinics in case of minor illnesses. This is how it works in Finland but I don't think it's very different in the rest of the Nordic countries.
From what I've heard, the tax system is fairly simple compared to Germany or France. For most people, filling their tax returns takes about five minutes. It can get complicated but mostly it's very simple.
Society is much less family-centric than in the south of Europe. In this regard, the Nordic countries resemble the UK and its former colonies. The welfare state can get a little intrusive at times. Child welfare is a high priority. In comprehensive school (grades 1 to 9), the parents of each pupil get a questionnaire with questions about the health of the child and the family environment in first, fifth and eighth grades. Their occupations, smoking and drinking habits, whether or not dad helps around the house, employment situation etc. etc. are asked. I read that the questionnaire is based on some American statistical child abuse risk analysis tool. (Did you know that a smoking parent is statistically more likely to abuse their child than a non-smoking one?) Finland has the second highest proportion of children placed outside of home (after Australia) among OECD countries. That might or might not be warranted by actual facts on the ground. I've read somewhere that in spite of alcohol consumption going down every year and general well-being among children and youth improving, the distribution of child and youth welfare has become somewhat more polarized than in the past.
The political system in all Nordic countries is a parliamentary multi-party democracy with division of powers into legislative, judicial and executive branches. The judicial branch is relatively less important than in the UK and its former colonies as the Roman-German judicial tradition is followed. Finland used to have a strong presidential institution but since the late 1980's that institution has been weakened through constitutional reforms. Sweden, Denmark and Norway are kingdoms with the monarch as a ceremonial head of state. Finland and Iceland are republics with the president as the head of state. The executive branch also has fewer powers than in the USA. Presidential decrees are nowadays very seldom used for any kind of active political purpose in Finland as opposed to the Cold War period. In Finland, seats in the parliament are allocated using the D'Hondt method leading to, sometimes prolonged, negotiations between multiple parties in an effort to find a majority coalition after the election. In contrast, Sweden uses a coalition system where voters have an opportunity to vote for coalitions decided prior to the elections.
The dominant political parties in Finland are National Coalition (pro-business centre-right party), Social Democratic Party and Centre Party (a centrist party with voter core made up of rural middle class). Two of these parties have formed the cabinet with additional parties without exception in the post WW II era.
Thank you very much for this detailed explanation.
It seems somewhat similar to Germany. We also had strong unions until 30 years ago and we have a mixed healthcare system as well, but it is complicated and pretty much the predecessor of Obama Care.
The good thing is that we won't stick our noses in the private/family live. Children get usually only seperated from their family if they get beaten or the family is below the poverty line.
The good thing is that we won't stick our noses in the private/family live. Children get usually only seperated from their family if they get beaten or the family is below the poverty line.
Poverty as grounds for removal of children from the family is actually a horrific practice, not to mention economically wasteful. The financial cost of foster care is very high. If poverty is the main problem of the family, it is much cheaper to remedy that with money or coupons.
The problem with that is that we do not want giving birth to be an income method. We already have low class people having, more children to get more money from the state.
Poverty is not officially the reason for removal, more the side effects of poverty like malnurture, crime and too young mothers.
It doesn't make financial sense to have children, subsidies or not. At best the subsidies barely offset the cost. The reasons you mention make perfect sense.
Correct sir. Smaller economic units is where the real energy comes from an economy. The allowance of the government to let business happen rather than slap the wrists due to every one in a million grievance is when there will be a real economic explosion. You will know when there is a golden economic age when they stop having jobs reports but rather new businesses started and new entrepreneurs created.
Prosperous societies are prosperous because they have higher levels of inclusion. Policies that ensure inclusion would include addressing inequality growth and unemployment.
My aim would be to establish fairness, not just for the 99%, but for the 100%. This can be achieved by reining-in economic privileges. One can't expect anyone to accept something that's less than fair and it's unreasonable to expect to be treated in a way that's more than fair. Fair's fair!
Georgism - begin replacing taxes like income tax, corporate tax and sales tax with a land value tax. This would remove economic distortions and inefficiencies as well as directly address inequality growth. MMT - implement a job guarantee program and cut off corporate welfare (no more selling government securities or paying interest on balances held at the central bank). Modern debt jubilee - deleverage private sector debt so as to avoid another financial crisis. If the land value tax is sufficiently high to cause land prices to drop, then the debt jubilee would mitigate the unfairness. Deficit spending - money spent by the government is money earned by non-government, so a government deficit is a non-government surplus. This would reduce the need for a job guarantee program, so those workers could then transition more quickly into jobs in the private sector.
The only question really is what size of government do you want.
Once you understand the mechanics of how MMT's job guarantee program works, you'll see how that's not a size-of-government issue, hence it's mandatory.
This is interesting - your upvote on my post (above) showed as being worth $0.06 yesterday and your upvote on your reply showed as being $0.36, but today they show as being %0.05 and $0.35 respectively. What's going on there?
Bitcoin and lending platforms are made to fail and when they do that's when the economic colapse will happen. That's why Invest in some altcoins like BAT, verge and cardano.
Fuck fiat, get crypto.
In theory Libertarianism sounds like a good philosophy – but, in my opinion, it doesn't factor in the human condition (i.e. greed, ego) therefore it cannot do what Government should be doing: protecting its people. I believe there are some things the government has no business controlling (i.e. forced pregnancies) and there are some things that have no business being for-profit (i.e. health care). I am not sure what to label myself other than left leaning.
The government is made up of people.
The solution is a government made of good people, at least to some extent. Easier to achieve that an entire society of good people. Still very, very hard, of course. Some societies may never achieve it. Needs tons of patience, cultural evolution, quotidian effort and time, but not impossible. (E.g. Iceland)
I would be for libertarianism in a society where every last (well, almost) person was compassionate and altruistic. Till then, good governance - with minimal intervention in only the areas that need it - is the ideal solution. One rarely seen, of course.
If you don't trust people with freedom, you shouldn't trust them with power.
Yes indeed. There are some people who are responsible enough to make sound judgement therefore can be trusted with SOME power. The States, unfortunately, is currently experiencing the dark side of human nature: many people currently in power do not seem evolved enough to handle unregulated freedom let alone power.
The solution is a government made of good people, at least to some extent.
The solution is transparency, each and every time. You can't expect a position of power not to be exploited by bad people unless you make it very difficult to get away with wrongdoing.
Countries with relatively little corruption and crime did not get that way because they're inhabited by superior people. The got like that by having long-standing traditions of distributed power structures. The cultural evolution that you speak of is part of it but it is entirely enabled by the "vertical of power" being low and flat, allowing for checks and balances. If conditions remain that way, it fosters honesty because it is easier to be successful that way. But the risk of backsliding is always there.
transparency is the answer.
Hold everyone to account, from the grassroots up...
A lot of the problems we see today, would never even have had the chance to develop, with openness in the system.
Very good point.
https://steemit.com/trump/@ghyassine/it-is-time-for-donald-trump-to-leave-the-white-house
Anarchy. I don't believe in taxes, but still would like to see a basic income through Natural Resources shares (Natural Resources are our common inheritance and must be shared)
Free market for everything else, with only guiding rule the principle of non-aggression towards people, property and the environment.
I'm an anarchist at heart but also see online direct democracy (liquid democracy with forums replacing congress) as something I could live with. with at least 90%+ consensus among all citizens for any rule to be approved. Anarchy requires 100% consensus but I doubt that will ever be possible unless in very tight nit communities.
how would that work in practice? Can you point to successful implementations of an anarchist system?
only in my dreams for now. Unfortunately every single corner of this planet is occupied by an armed tyrannical government.
Liberland (I'm sure you've heard) may obtain some small territory in former Yugoslavia to experiment libertarianism. I hope some day an Anarchy nation could also be formed, problem again is where. Btw you should interview Vít Jedlička president of Liberland on your programme if you haven't already.
Spain/Barcelona in 1936
The only way I could imagine (and it isn't hard to imagine) is a state whose main goal is to render itself obsolete by encoraging us to create strong and self sustainable communities and basically only serving as a helpful resource. This could lead to the formation of autonomous zones where people could experiment with whatever kind of ideas they'd like outside of the law that everyone is following in the rest of the country. In those communities, we'd have a chance to see what human nature looks like under a variety of different circumstances.
I would like for us to adopt a gift economy to the greatest extent possible, but I realize we have a long way to go. In my lifetime I hope to see pay-what-you-want become less fringe and more supported by the mainstream.
Nope. It hasn't been tried. Yet, is that a reason to keep trying the same things over and over again? Is that a reason to keep having the same arguments that have already occurred for more than a century and not learn the lessons from the outcomes of those discussions and experiments?
I tend to believe in Anarchy as my Utopian goal. Not Anarchy in the Chaos bent but rather in what it really means. From Anarchos meaning No Rulers. Noone with the right to tell others how they must live. There can still be naturally occurring leaders you can choose to voluntarily follow or not follow as time suits you and depending on the task/purpose. Yet a leader is not the same as a ruler.
However, I do try to be realistic. I do not believe the world is ready for Anarchy. We have some human nature problems that are great at corrupting ANY system no matter how great it sounds. The only way to counter human nature is with education and giving people the tools to notice those things and resit them. The problem is the education systems seem to be removing those tools at a steady pace. It leaves the populace largely emotionally driven rather than rationally. It turns most topics into something akin to a religion with how intractable people are. It leaves a population that has forgotten that not only is okay to be wrong occasionally, it is an important part of learning. The tool that is lacking is critical thinking, and particularly the ability to identify and notice the large amounts of logical fallacies that are used in almost every discussion. A lot of appeal to emotion, appeal to popularity, appeal to authority, and appeal to the stone fallacies. Being able to critically think gives the tools for people of disagreeing points of view to still be able to work together. Without it, it tends to lead to intollerance and one trying to destroy the other.
This is not an environment Anarchy would do well. Honestly, it is not an environment that ultimately any ideology will do well in other than for the short term.
We need to be willing to try new things. If they fail. Learn from it. Adjust. We need to stop recycling the same ideas and same systems and expect a different outcome.
We also need to stop WHAT IFing to death things that have not been tried. Some things we may not be able to see other options until we at least try them. Does the new thing have to be anarchy? No. Yet it should be new, rather than being stuck on the hamster wheel repeating the same crap over and over that has been done in history.
I choose to target critical thinking as the windmill I tilt at. Why? I don't see most ideologies working in the long run unless most of our population becomes skilled at critical thinking.
I believe in freedom. I endorse voluntarism.
Free Market Capitalism only remains Free Market until the government steps in. All aspects of monopolies and such people try to lay at the feet of Free Market actually seem to involve government interaction either in the form of laws, restrictions from competition, etc. Do they happen yes? Yet, I haven't been able to find examples where that happened for longer than a short period before the market corrected that didn't persist without the assistance of government.
Furthermore socialism and communism basically both become ultimate forms of monopoly. Socialism is cronyism to it's core. The thing that corrupts capitalism is cronyism. It also impacts communism. Could any of those ideologies work? Maybe. Yet that same human nture problem can corrupt any ideology. That is what I was getting at.
I don't believe I have the right to tell you or anyone else how they should live.
I also don't believe other people have the right to tell me how I should live.
Quantity of people is irrelevant. There is no magic number where force suddenly becomes acceptable.
In practice, I would point you to another term of poly-centric law and poly-centric governance. In some respect I'd say that we work within a somewhat poly-centric legal system in the abstract but when you zoom in to a local level it is still based off the monopoly of a territorial claim. It is not too far fetched to see how poly-centric law works today, but to move to the truest form is not in practice, but in effect would offer a market for governance. I would label myself as a "Libertarian" to most people I speak with but if were really talking I'd identify as an Anarchist. But Why should I and a majority of like-minded people get to tell a minority their government cant pay into a 'universal healthcare' if they want? and likewise (and more reality based) should I have the majority tell me I have to pay into a 'universal healthcare' government. What if we didn't vote for people (with power for a timespan) and instead payed them directly. Well the idea is that you'd pay your government truly voluntarily and receive it's benefits, and I would to mine. And where these two governments agree on things they form collations like lets say to fund a Parks department (So I can still have nice hiking trails) and where our two disagree with other governments like lets say i.e. (National Conservative Government) who pays for a Department of Defense (which is offensive) and outlawing it's own citizenry abortions We'd have no coalition, and both our citizenry of your and my government pay no for their war (and if that were the case like with the overarching unpopular "Iraq War' the funds collected by the "Governments /Parties/" would not be able too, or at the very least I would have to pay for the military who invades and nation builds foreign soil.
I'm rambling, but how would it work in practice, just like now except more market effects (and Markets for Governance is the most critical one which is monopolized) And most libertarian types will point to the closest historic examples as mentioned like medieval Iceland and Catalonia (Spanish Civil War times, and was a Left-Anarchism)
It would be great to achieve 90%, but most places are far from it. 70% would be a huge improvement. Society’s are trending to change, but most are afraid of change. My prediction is that decisions will continue to be closer and closer to 50/50. Many times a poor decision is better than no decision, so this is quiet troubling!
Free money (basic income), cannot work with a free market. The truly free market relies on supply, demand, and finding price.
Free money alters that paradigm. How do you calculate the value of free money?
(and all the earned money taken away in taxes. It's flawed from the beginning. Soz)
I love consentual iterations, and hate all forms of coercion. And all governments are based on coercion and brute force. So I consider myself to be a libertarian.
I love consentual iterations, and hate all forms of coercion. And all governments are based on coercion and brute force. So I consider myself to be a libertarian.
I HODL!
Scandanavian Social Democrazy.
Well, I guess I'm going with no matter how many times you vote on my rights I still don't think you get to decide them. That includes what I do with my money, my life, my marriage, my genitals, my commerce, my time, my kids, and generally speaking "my lawn."
Your regulations basically put a limit on my private authority to act in whatever way I wish so long as no harm and most specifically meaning property damage or physical harm is done to another.
The idea of taking money from me to fund products you and fellow voters believe in through the use and threat of force isn't in the best interest of freedom loving people. Combine that with governments use those powers with selfish malicious intent all the time, and you'll find my attitude change from this is bad and immoral to this is extremely harmful to all peaceful inhabitants of the planet and endangers all of us.
Going with "highly-woke ,market-driven, free and emancipated human."
What he said.
Very well said.
Technology will render all social programs useless anyway. When we have robots better than doctors, socialized healthcare will become useless.
How are people without means going to get access to healthcare provided by said robots? What difference does it make whether or not the doctor is a robot?
When you said, "Your regulations basically put a limit on my private authority to act in whatever way I wish so long as no harm and most specifically meaning property damage or physical harm is done to another." It made me think, this person should come to California right now. Regulations that have kept folks from clearing brush, bushes, and while providing no water and restricting water usage, has brought us the Thomas Fire. Almost 300k acres burned and still the only reason they're calling containment it because it's burning to the ocean. The old timers have been telling us for decades that the ridiculous regulations on the people of the State of California would lead to just such a disaster. A fire that jumps all lines, burns to the ocean...Can we build a couple of dams please? I've no need for a bullet train from SF to Chowchilla, but water would be nice...I'll leave my comments about Governor Moonbeam for another post =0)
Cooperative agorism as a means of creating those new institutions that will replace our current form of government - the centralized state - with voluntary and mutuality beneficial contracts.
I'd like for us to have a society that is just a society. More choice for those that want it and and dedicated work to establish market based solutions to accute poverty, unemployment and other sudden catastrophes.
Free markets utilized to the best of the ability of real human beings.
I don't know what exactly all these Scandinavians have as a government/economic system. Would be nice if you could explain that further. I heard Kyle from Secular Talk giving the same answer.
I am generally for smaller economic units. Small government in a way that your most local decisions should have the highest priority not the lowest.
I think every small unit can then define how much socialism they want. I am in favor of public transport, water, garbage, healthcare/emergency service and communication systems against most kinds of welfare and charities, but in favor of basic income. With "public" I mean completely state owned industry btw.
good idea for a future video, thanks!
All Nordic countries have market economies. The share of small businesses of all economic activity is relatively small. Large corporations generate most of the GDP along with public services. Labor union membership is nearly universal and collective bargaining with employer's unions is the norm. It is common for trade unions, employer's unions and the government to engage in regular tripartite negotiations that tie together public fiscal policy and wages. Labor unions and their central organizations and the Social Democratic parties in each country have very close ties and accusations of illicit forms of fundraising crop up regularly. Correspondingly, employer's unions have close ties with the right-wing pro-business parties in each country.
All have mixed public/private health care systems. There are public health clinics but most working people have general health care paid for them by their employees. The public health care sector runs municipal hospitals in large cities, provincial central hospitals and university hospitals that provide the most advanced/specialized care. Public clinics and hospitals charge nominal fees from their patients. It is fairly common for working people to buy health insurance packages for their families but these are fairly cheap as they do not need to cover anything expensive. Most people purchase them to be able to go to private clinics instead of the public clinics in case of minor illnesses. This is how it works in Finland but I don't think it's very different in the rest of the Nordic countries.
From what I've heard, the tax system is fairly simple compared to Germany or France. For most people, filling their tax returns takes about five minutes. It can get complicated but mostly it's very simple.
Society is much less family-centric than in the south of Europe. In this regard, the Nordic countries resemble the UK and its former colonies. The welfare state can get a little intrusive at times. Child welfare is a high priority. In comprehensive school (grades 1 to 9), the parents of each pupil get a questionnaire with questions about the health of the child and the family environment in first, fifth and eighth grades. Their occupations, smoking and drinking habits, whether or not dad helps around the house, employment situation etc. etc. are asked. I read that the questionnaire is based on some American statistical child abuse risk analysis tool. (Did you know that a smoking parent is statistically more likely to abuse their child than a non-smoking one?) Finland has the second highest proportion of children placed outside of home (after Australia) among OECD countries. That might or might not be warranted by actual facts on the ground. I've read somewhere that in spite of alcohol consumption going down every year and general well-being among children and youth improving, the distribution of child and youth welfare has become somewhat more polarized than in the past.
The political system in all Nordic countries is a parliamentary multi-party democracy with division of powers into legislative, judicial and executive branches. The judicial branch is relatively less important than in the UK and its former colonies as the Roman-German judicial tradition is followed. Finland used to have a strong presidential institution but since the late 1980's that institution has been weakened through constitutional reforms. Sweden, Denmark and Norway are kingdoms with the monarch as a ceremonial head of state. Finland and Iceland are republics with the president as the head of state. The executive branch also has fewer powers than in the USA. Presidential decrees are nowadays very seldom used for any kind of active political purpose in Finland as opposed to the Cold War period. In Finland, seats in the parliament are allocated using the D'Hondt method leading to, sometimes prolonged, negotiations between multiple parties in an effort to find a majority coalition after the election. In contrast, Sweden uses a coalition system where voters have an opportunity to vote for coalitions decided prior to the elections.
The dominant political parties in Finland are National Coalition (pro-business centre-right party), Social Democratic Party and Centre Party (a centrist party with voter core made up of rural middle class). Two of these parties have formed the cabinet with additional parties without exception in the post WW II era.
Any questions, David or anyone else?
Thank you very much for this detailed explanation.
It seems somewhat similar to Germany. We also had strong unions until 30 years ago and we have a mixed healthcare system as well, but it is complicated and pretty much the predecessor of Obama Care.
The good thing is that we won't stick our noses in the private/family live. Children get usually only seperated from their family if they get beaten or the family is below the poverty line.
The good thing is that we won't stick our noses in the private/family live. Children get usually only seperated from their family if they get beaten or the family is below the poverty line.
Poverty as grounds for removal of children from the family is actually a horrific practice, not to mention economically wasteful. The financial cost of foster care is very high. If poverty is the main problem of the family, it is much cheaper to remedy that with money or coupons.
The problem with that is that we do not want giving birth to be an income method. We already have low class people having, more children to get more money from the state.
Poverty is not officially the reason for removal, more the side effects of poverty like malnurture, crime and too young mothers.
It doesn't make financial sense to have children, subsidies or not. At best the subsidies barely offset the cost. The reasons you mention make perfect sense.
Correct sir. Smaller economic units is where the real energy comes from an economy. The allowance of the government to let business happen rather than slap the wrists due to every one in a million grievance is when there will be a real economic explosion. You will know when there is a golden economic age when they stop having jobs reports but rather new businesses started and new entrepreneurs created.
Prosperous societies are prosperous because they have higher levels of inclusion. Policies that ensure inclusion would include addressing inequality growth and unemployment.
My aim would be to establish fairness, not just for the 99%, but for the 100%. This can be achieved by reining-in economic privileges. One can't expect anyone to accept something that's less than fair and it's unreasonable to expect to be treated in a way that's more than fair. Fair's fair!
Georgism - begin replacing taxes like income tax, corporate tax and sales tax with a land value tax. This would remove economic distortions and inefficiencies as well as directly address inequality growth.
MMT - implement a job guarantee program and cut off corporate welfare (no more selling government securities or paying interest on balances held at the central bank).
Modern debt jubilee - deleverage private sector debt so as to avoid another financial crisis. If the land value tax is sufficiently high to cause land prices to drop, then the debt jubilee would mitigate the unfairness.
Deficit spending - money spent by the government is money earned by non-government, so a government deficit is a non-government surplus. This would reduce the need for a job guarantee program, so those workers could then transition more quickly into jobs in the private sector.
I tend to believe this.
The only question really is what size of government do you want.
Once you understand the mechanics of how MMT's job guarantee program works, you'll see how that's not a size-of-government issue, hence it's mandatory.
This is interesting - your upvote on my post (above) showed as being worth $0.06 yesterday and your upvote on your reply showed as being $0.36, but today they show as being %0.05 and $0.35 respectively. What's going on there?