Hey Mark,
Osiris
The relationship between special interest groups and beaurocrats is definitely a tangled web of corruption, and it seems to me that they come as a package. Both of the parties are entrenched in this relationship and although the republicans may talk about some libertarian policies, in practice both parties have clear authoritarian and statist tendencies. So voting for either of them doesn't help in terms of this problem. I'm interested to know what your thoughts are on how we can actually achieve greater efficiency.
Sure, here's some specific items that, if I had my way, would be implemented here in the US.
1. Reduce the size of the military by 80,% (approximately $350 billion annually)
2. Create legislation that specified exactly what the government's (state, federal) jurisdiction was in terms of reallocation of resources/collaborative projects. Some areas where government involvement would be appropriate...off the top of my head.
2a. Infrastructure; transportation, communications
2b. PreK education (to level the playing field for the more disadvantage segments of the population)
2c. After school programs
2d. K-12 (if you don't like public ed, then go private [thumb] )
2e. Adequate funding for post secondary student loan programs.
3.
Create a Univeral Health Care System. (Preventative medicine
is cost effective)
4. Harsh penalties for private sector discrimination.
5.
REAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM (not the watered down McCain-Feingold bs)
6. End affirmative action as we know it
7. Workfare not welfare
I could probably think of more if I took the time, but that gives you an idea of where my values are at.
"Beyond matters of inchoate political culture, New Hampshire has a good head start on many specific issues important to libertarians. It lacks both sales and personal income taxes—though many complain the property taxes are too high, and there is an 8.5 percent business profits tax. About two-thirds of the property taxes go to public schools, so a successful school privatization would have a huge impact on the tax burden." (http://www.reason.co...bd.revolt.shtml).
I'm rather interested in the free state project (www.freestateproject.org). If the benefits of libertarianism can be demonstrated at a state level, it may provide a base for gaining wider popularity. The target for the FSP, New Hampshire, is already a very libertarian state, as was mentioned earlier in this topic their motto is "life free or die." Contrary to some earlier postings, Laissez-faire capitalism has never existed, only some of its principles have been adopted, and in a discretionary manner (except perhaps in the american wild west; www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf), so a proof of concept is needed. The critics of libertarianism (Chomsky for example) are almost always attacking problems that arise from a mixed system, but which would not be expected to exist in a truly libertarian system.
Yep, the Free State Project is what I was refering to earlier. I would also be interested to see such a plan put into actions, if for no other reason that to see if a model based on Libertarian values could be successful. Unfortunately, my friend told me that there was a deadline set for a disbandment of this alliance if a minimum membership (I believe it was 10,000 individuals) could not be met by a certain date. My friend wasn't sure, but he thought that the deadline might be approaching. [I can imagine that getting 10,000 people to pick up and move their lives/families/occupations is a rather tall order.]
I agree that there are multiple valid and subjective perspectives, but the idea of dichotomies is very artificial, a great oversimplification. elrond already made clear the problems that arise when you make this oversimplification. Perhaps some people are willling to accept the consequences of treating these things as dichotomies, as we've already been over, but its still an oversimplification that doesnt actually exist.
This is a very dangerous position to have. 51% of people might think that immortality is morally wrong and you shouldn’t have it, so they pass a law, while 49% think immortality is fantastic, but they’re screwed. 51% of people might think that drafting our young to fight in a war in North Korea is a great idea, and so they pass a law, while 49% are adamantly opposed.
Now here’s the kicker. Only 2% could agree with both laws. So with just two little laws you’ve oppressed 98% of the population.
I'm not quite sure how Elrond's quote fits into this (he was alluding to the tyranny of the majority).
I also think you are misinterpreting me to a certain extent. I usually try to avoid simplication when discussing socioeconomics, but in this case I believe my statement is valid. There are numerous forces/trends/pressures that can be attributed to capitalism and there are numerous forces/trends/pressures that can be attributed to democracy. If you dispute this statement I'd be curious to learn what your conceptualization of a modern mixed economy is.
DonS
