Differences in political views.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-09-2013, 03:25 PM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2013 03:33 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Differences in political views.
(19-09-2013 08:13 AM)frankksj Wrote:  I'm not too familiar with Sweden's system, but I read once that the difference between the US and Sweden is that Sweden takes a lot of taxes, but then gives the money back to the poorer working class (transfer payments). Thus they're not shifting the % of private vs. public workers, they're just taking money from some in the private sector and giving it to others in the private sector, thus the workload on the private sector doesn't increase. In the US, Americans are loathe to give money to the poor—it's considered a handout. So, instead the income tax money goes primarily to wars, and what's left goes to bureaucracies, like the NSA, the DOE, etc. In other words, every time they raises they're shifting the public vs. private balance, whereas in Sweden they're not. The left defends this by arguing that the Federal government's largest expenses are medicare and social security. But that's wrong; those expenses are NOT paid for with income taxes, they are paid with “FICA contributions”, which is a separate system. Income taxes never go to medicare and ss. So increasing income taxes does not go to medicare and ss—it goes to more wars and useless bureaucracies, and just increases the burden on the private sector.

I think the Swiss model is the most sustainable. Keep the taxation and government at the local government, so the local communities are locked in competition with each other to get residents. That's how the Swiss have a government that takes a smaller % of the total economy than the US, BUT, gives even more services to the people than the Swedes.
I see your point. Yes, that is a good system, I don't say it's not. But I don't think Sweden is as popular destination of corporations as Hong Kong. And I don't think Swedes are very motivated to start new business. So regardless of public/private sector GDP, their whole GDP is lower than other states. That's not a problem in itself, but there's still capitalism out there.

Capitalism is motivated by fear and greed, and very, very rarely by fun. Swedish social system removes fear and weakens greed. There is more fun, but the fun is not channelled into production, because capitalistic business does not run on fun. Not yet. Office paperwork will be office paperwork, no matter how many social employee benefits and neo-corporativist egalitarian Swedish culture. If the fun of work is not the primary motivation, and if there are other comparable ways to live, Swedish capitalism will not be as motivated as in other countries.

Another problem, capitalism design things to sell, not to last. GDP in capitalism is made of useless crap, or in better case, mediocre quality of goods that break down much sooner than is in our technical possibilities. Thus capitalism needs to grow all the time, it is not sustainable on a fixed level. It's either boom or bust. Sweden made the boom or bust really really slow, but they did not stop this law. What goes up, must go down and they are going down unless they cut down the welfare state, which they indeed did. They did not miraculously rebuild their infrastructure with top technology to be sustainable and automated. They did not build The Venus Project, they have similar cars and houses and refrigerators like us, which break down and need to be replaced fairly often. To buy them, they need to go to work and do something. And that something must produce something that someone else buys, and that generates profit. They still need economic growth.

Thus in capitalism there still must be the fundamental elements of madness: economic growth, the threat of government power, the threat of destitution and the allure of being one of 5 richest people in the world. You can not have vanilla capitalism without the government gun, without the stick of poverty and without the golden carrot that only about 5 people ever get. You can not have a civilized capitalism. There was an American spokesman at my school, a very famous economist from some think tank. He considered himself more radical than most. Yet he spoke of Warren Buffet, swinging from millions rich, into millions in debt, several times of his career. He spoke of top 10 richest people, and how these positions are changing all the time, as people compete. And he spoke of all this as a good thing! He was worried about how China uses political power and economics to steamroll over liberal capitalist nations of Europe. And he was making constant excuses how he actually thinks "fuck the poor" and "be top richest or die trying", but we need to protect our citizens somehow from China, because China doesn't play by the rules. Well, I too think we need to protect our citizens somehow, but I find it disgusting he had to spew evil bullshit to get the message across to the capitalists. We can not have a civilized capitalism.

In capitalism, nothing is ever certain. you want any kind of social certainty, you ruin the game.
Does it work? Yes, it works as long as the technological productivity does not exceed basic needs in some form. As long as producers and consumers are anywhere within the sight of each other, it works. As long as there are families and communities to back you up, in case your business fails. But if they are like today, worlds apart, socially, economically, nationally, technologically, scientifically, culturally, biologically... you get the idea. It started with the industrial revolution - changed the old family model and now the state is our mommy and daddy, the state, who used to be just the policeman. And it's not good. The state can do good parenting like Sweden, but it can not motivate you to grow up and work in the big bad capitalist world. It can be your mommy, but not your daddy, not at the same time.

Tell me, am I paranoid? Do I push it too much? What is it about humans, that they want certainty? What is wrong with me, that I only accept a foolproof system? TVP is a foolproof system, it's holistic, it has everything covered. Capitalism is not foolproof, not holistic, it's just the production. It doesn't say much about the government and it says nothing about people's education and consciousness.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 03:31 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
@Chas,

That is NOT my position:

Quote:You have a fundamental belief of opposition to violence by the state.

NO. I oppose ALL violence, the initiating of force by ANYBODY. It's irrelevant if he works for the government or not.

Quote:People whose will includes violence to others must be isolated from others, and that requires force.

No. I never said to isolate people that advocate the use of violence. All I said is that those using violence must allow people to leave without hindrance in order to escape the violence. How is force required to 'allow someone to leave'? Force is only used to keep people confined. I never said that if you want to use violence YOU must move, I said you must allow ME to move. Big difference.

Quote:The problem with your ideology is that it denies people protection from others.

My formula deals with only one thing—protecting people from violence. If you're defining “protecting people” as subjecting them to violence, then yes I'm against “protecting people”. But if you use “protecting people” in the traditional sense of “protecting people from violence”, then what I am proposing is that ALL people are protected from EVERYBODY.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 03:33 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(19-09-2013 03:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  But holding an ideology often (usually?) means accepting unexamined tenets.

'Often' or 'usually' (and I grant 'often' can see the case for 'usually') aren't 'always', which is the post I was responding to.

(19-09-2013 03:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  But what it always does is bound the solution to any problem within narrow constraints set by the ideology.
That is the cognitive blindness - thinking only within that narrow box.

I agree with that definition - but the size of the box is a specific feature, so it doesn't make too much sense to ascribe it to belief systems in general.

Meh. Just rubs me the wrong way when people say things like that; it strikes me as a very stupid hipster type line. "Look at all the other people, with their ideologies; contrast me with my special collection of opinions and beliefs"...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 03:36 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(19-09-2013 03:31 PM)frankksj Wrote:  NO. I oppose ALL violence, the initiating of force by ANYBODY. It's irrelevant if he works for the government or not.

Well, not quite, though, right?

You oppose initiation of force unless it is necessary.

The matter of what constitutes necessary being the core of almost all political disagreements.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 03:37 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(19-09-2013 03:31 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @Chas,

That is NOT my position:

Quote:You have a fundamental belief of opposition to violence by the state.

NO. I oppose ALL violence, the initiating of force by ANYBODY. It's irrelevant if he works for the government or not.

Quote:People whose will includes violence to others must be isolated from others, and that requires force.

No. I never said to isolate people that advocate the use of violence. All I said is that those using violence must allow people to leave without hindrance in order to escape the violence. How is force required to 'allow someone to leave'? Force is only used to keep people confined. I never said that if you want to use violence YOU must move, I said you must allow ME to move. Big difference.

Quote:The problem with your ideology is that it denies people protection from others.

My formula deals with only one thing—protecting people from violence. If you're defining “protecting people” as subjecting them to violence, then yes I'm against “protecting people”. But if you use “protecting people” in the traditional sense of “protecting people from violence”, then what I am proposing is that ALL people are protected from EVERYBODY.

If someone is perpetrating violence on me, it is not up to me to move away from it.

I am saying that we must isolate those whose will is to commit violence, and that requires force.

If someone breaks into my house, I will use force against them. What would you do?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 03:48 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
Quote:If someone is perpetrating violence on me, it is not up to me to move away from it.

Maybe, but it's the peaceful way out. Move somewhere else where people accept as you are so you can move on and focus on enjoying life. Isn't that better than the current system where the left and right each insist they're right and fight to the death to get the 'club' of government so they can beat the other side into submission? Wouldn't it be more productive to let the right-wing rednecks live their live in peace in, say, Mississippi, while the free-love atheists live in New York?

Quote:I am saying that we must isolate those whose will is to commit violence, and that requires force.

I disagree. 95% of the population advocates using violence to get their way. What % of the population are willing to reject the use of violence on all issues, from moral things like drugs, to economic things? There's only a handful of people who believe in non-aggression. So, I think it's silly to suggest that the 5% should 'contain the 95%'. Why not just convince the 95% that it's in everyone's interest to let the 5% move away and setup an enclave in New Hampshire or something. The 95% benefit too. The far right can live in their states where they ban every "sin". The far left can live in their states where everybody's possessions are shared as community property. Communists can find a place to live and practice their system.

I disagree that we need to use force to put everybody into their camps. Just let them vote with their feet and move of their own free will.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 03:52 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(19-09-2013 03:48 PM)frankksj Wrote:  95% of the population advocates using violence to get their way.

That's a hell of a statistic.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 03:58 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(19-09-2013 03:52 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(19-09-2013 03:48 PM)frankksj Wrote:  95% of the population advocates using violence to get their way.

That's a hell of a statistic.

Sure, it's just a guess. What percent do you think it is? What percent of the public do you think has something they believe is right, be it a moral issue like drugs, or an economic issue like paying taxes, and believes that there should be laws enforcing this, with armed police to force compliance? I'll bet it's around 95%. Surely if you're a democrat or a republican you believe in using force since their whole platforms are based on the use of force.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 04:02 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(19-09-2013 03:48 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:If someone is perpetrating violence on me, it is not up to me to move away from it.

Maybe, but it's the peaceful way out. Move somewhere else where people accept as you are so you can move on and focus on enjoying life. Isn't that better than the current system where the left and right each insist they're right and fight to the death to get the 'club' of government so they can beat the other side into submission? Wouldn't it be more productive to let the right-wing rednecks live their live in peace in, say, Mississippi, while the free-love atheists live in New York?

Quote:I am saying that we must isolate those whose will is to commit violence, and that requires force.

I disagree. 95% of the population advocates using violence to get their way. What % of the population are willing to reject the use of violence on all issues, from moral things like drugs, to economic things? There's only a handful of people who believe in non-aggression. So, I think it's silly to suggest that the 5% should 'contain the 95%'. Why not just convince the 95% that it's in everyone's interest to let the 5% move away and setup an enclave in New Hampshire or something. The 95% benefit too. The far right can live in their states where they ban every "sin". The far left can live in their states where everybody's possessions are shared as community property. Communists can find a place to live and practice their system.

I disagree that we need to use force to put everybody into their camps. Just let them vote with their feet and move of their own free will.


You didn't answer my question.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 04:11 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(19-09-2013 03:58 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Sure, it's just a guess. What percent do you think it is? What percent of the public do you think has something they believe is right, be it a moral issue like drugs, or an economic issue like paying taxes, and believes that there should be laws enforcing this, with armed police to force compliance? I'll bet it's around 95%. Surely if you're a democrat or a republican you believe in using force since their whole platforms are based on the use of force.

Even you admit there are situations in which force is necessary. As I stated just above, virtually everyone ('virtually', since there may well be absolute pacifists, not that I've met any) holds this sentiment.

The difference is in deciding what is necessary. In that context your statement is entirely ambiguous.

Is it "95% of the population advocates always using violence to get their way"? Because then I would say it's ludicrously high.

Is it "95% of the population advocates never fully renouncing using violence to get their way"? Because then I would say it's too low.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: