anomaly

Do you have a plan for getting from here to there without resorting to further privatization and deregulation of the current semi-capitalist (apparently; or, in your terms) system? I think you may want to jump on board the anti-capitalist movement, many of whom advocate revolution, which is seemingly the only possible way of getting from here to there. What you're describing as 'capitalism' may appear in today's capitalists eyes as anti-capitalist. Quite paradoxical, but true. Today's system, if we really want to define it, is corporatism. As Mussolini said, though, "fascism is corporatism. We live in a fascist society, going by this definition.

Gabo

My overall proposal:


Allow anyone to opt out of ALL restrictive government programs and regulations by choice.

They would have to opt out all at once to stop people from only opting out of the negatives while continuing to mooch off the positives.


The people that decided to opt out would get:
-NO benefits from any government special interests
-NO obligation to pay taxes to provide for government special interests
-NO restrictions on mutually consented interactions

__________________
Libertarian (n.) - a selfish, money hoarding, drug using anarchist

anomaly

This kind of move would only decrease the size of gov't, and thus, hurt Americans by making business king. We need to nationalize the economy, but first we must reform our gov't by making it into truly a people's state. Decentralising the gov't seems a good first move (speaking of, Gabo, what are your views on gov't decentralisation?), but we also need to reform the electorate process, perhaps regulating campaign spending. This would mean that the winner would not be the party that spends the most. Also, we need proportional representation for the legislative branch of gov't, ensuring that even minority views get representation. Perhaps we need something of a 5 party system: radical left, liberals, moderates, conservatives, and radical right. MAke that 6, since you probably want a libertarian party, which does not fit into any of the previously listed conditions. But, if we can further democratize our gov't, why not democratize the economy (by nationalizing it, thus handing it over to representatives chosen by the people).

Gabo

Business would only be king for those that wanted it to be king.

People like you that hate private businesses and LOVE government regulations can continue to support and use the government system.



My entire proposal IS complete decentralization!

It goes as far to decentralize the government down to each individual.

But of course each of those individuals would be free to come together into a voluntary community.



[QUOTE=anomaly]but we also need to reform the electorate process, perhaps regulating campaign spending. This would mean that the winner would not be the party that spends the most.
I believe restrictions on campaign spending is unfair.

Many people are aware of 3rd parties, they just don't want to "throw away their vote".


A way to fix this is to institute Instant Runoff Voting.


This system works like this......
When you go to vote, you don't just choose 1 person. You can rank as many or few candidates as you want in your order of preference.
The decision for the winner is done by "runoffs" (hence the name).
First, all primary (1st choice) votes are counted. The candidate with the least primary votes is eliminated. Anyone who voted for them has their vote now count for the next choice on their list.
This process is repeated untill all candidates are eliminated, thus revealing the winner.

This is MUCH more fair to 3rd parties, because people won't be afraid to vote for them.



A system flowing from right to left is completely inaccurate.

Do you even know that the political spectrum is a diamond, not a line?

Here is a small political quiz accompanied with a diagram to help you out:
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html


Personally I see no reason for representatives at all.
I believe any matters that need voting (which should be slim to none if we ALWAYS recognize individual freedom) should be decided on with a national vote once a year.
No need for representatives to misinterpret the beliefs of the general public.

__________________
Libertarian (n.) - a selfish, money hoarding, drug using anarchist

craigfarmer

Hopefully, many here are simply exercising their minds, and not being serious.

It should be clear, that we can't just let people "opt" out of certain things.


I believe in true freedom.

To have more freedom, we actually need rules, laws, regulation, etc.

People who don't think so, just prove how well our great country is working right now.

I remember Rush Limbaugh once saying how ridiculous it was that we needed Rest. inspectors because if the food was bad or if people got sick or died from a restaurant's food, people wouldn't go there, and the market would shut it down.

He forgets that certain illnesses can take years to surface.
He forgets that a business can start out clean and end up dirty.
Also, people can get ill from the food there, and not know the origin for some time if at all.

The point is we need basic standards. We the people through our government need to decide, do we drive on the left side of the road or the right. This gives us the freedom to drive otherwise there'd be accidents galore.

We need to establish legal principles to resolve disputes.
For instance whether a buyer is presumed to know all of the risks of a product or does a seller have to inform them explicitly beforehand.
This allows for the freedom of commerce.

Regulation of the airwaves allows for the freedom to produce radio and t.v. networks and shows. Otherwise no one could be seen or heard possiblly because of the confusion.

If I were free to yell fire everytime you wanted to speak to an audience. You wouldn't be free to speak.

The government should set the rules that promotes as much freedom as possible. There are way too many laws, restrictions, etc. on the books now, which allows people to be extreme in their rhetoric against our laws and government.

We still should remember and reflect that we live in the greatest country ever created, and we can work to perfect it.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!

anomaly

Uh, wait, in the very next section, you claim to want to destroy gov't and go down to each individual governing himself! So we are free to continue supporting regulations and a gov't that doesn't exist?




Well, what I propose would simply be to give states more power to decide for themselves things like gay marriage, separation of church and state, and things like that. What you propose is complete anarchism. While I agree that anarchism is a noble goal, the question is how to get there. And simply going from a bureaucracy to anarchism doesn't seem the way. My proposal is to go to socialism (a revisionary change, not too radical), thus giving the people more power in their gov't and their economy (it finally would be their economy, rather than businesses'!). From there, anarchism is possible, if the people desire it. What you propose is to get rid of gov't right now, something that since the New Deal has been the only thing protecting the average worker (white and blue collar) from big business. Giving corporations unlimited power will not help everyone as you think.



[QUOTE=Gabo]But you'd still have the big two getting all sorts of funding from major corporations. The Socialist Party (and other leftist parties) still wouldn't get hardly any funding. And this means still no one will know what they have to offer, while they figure that what the Dems or GOP offers is 'good enough'. Also, you have some people actually believing that the two major parties will follow thru on their promises.




First off, yes I realize the new 'diamond' political model. I was simply throwing general and vague ideas out there. On to your second part, if there were to be a national vote, what would people be voting on? And how would you decide the winner of the vote? Would it just be the majority winning? But I thought that 'individual rights' means people are free to simply ignore the banter of the majority, as you say they should be free to do with gov't regulations? And what or who would act on this vote, and carry out what the people wanted? There is no government. And do you really think that every person will recognize individual freedom? What if some one wished to own slaves, and so abducted some people at gunpoint and made them work for him? After all, he's simply exerting some individual freedom to do so. Would people be free to murder? There are no laws, since their is no gov't. Many, many questions there about your supposedly 'freer' system. Your system is flawed in that the people have nothing with which to unite them, and so rather than anarchism, you would see anarchy. In my 'utopian system', people would be united under communism. After all, the world would have to decide, as a people, to go that way. Under your system, you simply hand all authority and control that once belonged to the state over to corporations.

Gabo

Sorry Creg, but you know absolutely nothing about real freedom.



I would like you to tell me a single law (besides the one that protects our liberty) that INCREASES the freedom of all it is involved with.


The answer is none.



What you DO want, though, is freedom for people like you so it benefits you.
This is not equal or real freedom.
It is selective freedom.



When you buy something from a restraunt, you are taking a chance. You are purchasing food that you don't see being made. It is your own CHOICE to take that chance. It is the restraunt's own CHOICE to sell the food.

Sure, if they give you something they said they wouldn't (like poison), you are free to sue them, etc.


But when you try to PREVENT them from serving such food with rules and regulations, you are LIMITING their freedom.

Not only that, but you are LIMITING the freedom of the consumer. I can no longer purchase diseased or poisoned food.

Also, the cost is most likely to INCREASE because of government mandated regulations. Neither the consumer nor the supplier want this, and it LIMITS their freedom as well.



It's normal to assume a society without these regulations be a horrible, filthy place where everyone serves bad food and everyone gets sick.

But that is just not the case.


In such a society, restraunts would pride themselves on maintaining a clean, poison-free workplace. They know that the success of their business presides exclusively in the hands of the consumer.

A single case of food poisoning can spread like wildfire. Only a few days after someone gets poisoned, media outlets everywhere would have stories persuading people NOT to eat at the restraunt.

Furthermore, the person eating the bad food could sue the restraunt, causing further damage and forcing the restraunt to increase prices to pay for the cost of the damages.


Bad, unsafe restraunts would be out of business in a matter of weeks.
Clean, friendly restraunts would reign supreme, delivering good quality and safe food.



But just because the government has no regulations doesn't mean there can't be any regulations.

Businesses would easily develop to rate restraunts on their service, food, and cleanliness. People would just as easily be able to tell which restraunts are good and which ones are bad.

Those that don't get the seal of approval from respected critics will see less service. Only the people that are willing to take the risk would eat here, but at least they CAN eat here.

__________________
Libertarian (n.) - a selfish, money hoarding, drug using anarchist

Gabo

There's this crazy idea where people actually govern THEMSELVES!

There would be nothing stopping you and the other regulation-happy people from banding together into a community that prohibits free market.



Not quite.

In anarchism, the strong (whether physically, mentally, or socially) reign supreme. They are free to FORCE their will upon others.

This is not allowed in a free society.



Anarchy: no government
Socialism: as much government as possible


I don't see how creating more government is going to reach the goal of no government....



Ummm..... in case you didn't know....

Republicans and Democrats are both socialist parties.

They only differ in HOW they want to spend the money they steal from you.



If you read my previous post closely, you would see the part about these decisions having to still respect the complete freedom of individuals.

I can't think of any things to vote on, but there is some things that the government needs to do, mainly the justice system.



Since that is basically the only law in this form of government, I would expect most people to follow it.

And those that don't would still receive retribution for their actions.



If you have closely followed my posts and opinions, you will see that anarchism is not what I propose.

There is a single law-- I like to call it the Golden Rule-- that goes something like this:
"No individual or group may initiate FORCE upon any other individual or group's life, liberty, and/or property."


Slavery....... FORCE
Murder........ FORCE

These would still be illegal.

And just because the government is minimal doesn't mean it isn't there. The judicial system would be all that is left, there to ONLY give retribution for those who have violated rights.

__________________
Libertarian (n.) - a selfish, money hoarding, drug using anarchist

anomaly

So, although the state would still exist, my comrades and I would be able to simply walk out and leave? And then we'd be able to have a sort of real free trade for resources we do not possess? Again, I like the ends, but not the means.




Is that what anarchism is? Anarchism=no government. Some anrchists are collectivists, others, like Ms. Rand, are individualists. What becomes important is redistribution (or the lack of) and democracy (or the lack of). Ms. Rand's version does not include redistribution nor democracy. The 'strong' are free to rule over the 'weak'. You really should read Atlas Shrugged. I hated it, but maybe you'll like it.




First, let me clarify that anarchy is a state of no control whereas anarchism simply means no government, bt still some control. There is a difference. Now on to socialism. I was waiting for you to ask this! It does seem a bit oxymoron-ish when you first look at it. But, if socialism is democratic in nature (as Sweden is) this means the people will be free to directly control their economy by electing appropriate representatives. This also gives them the freedom to elect more revolutionary leaders that would push towards anarcho-communism. Communism would have to be a global effort, so the idea is that a country cannot become communist, but one country can become socialist, giving a particular govt's people the maximum amount of power. Since the people rule, once every country is socialist (according to a Marxist, this should be inevitable, as other peoples will see what other countries have done i.e. socialism, and then want a similar system.), the transition to communism is quite easy, as the people of the world just vote for it in one election. I support a total democratic process, others support military involvement.




This is just inaccurate. Socialism in the USA is slipping away, as both parties now seem o support the extension of the 'free market'. where are you getting this info from? The Dems were socialist back in the '30s, and since the 70s, have been going to the right. Republicans have never supported socialism. Bush's new budget even includes cutting of 150 social programs (reducing gov't's size dramatically) and the only thing he is spending on is (besides his wars, obviously) privatisation! How are the Dems or the GOP socialist? You're just making yourself look silly by saying this.




Oh man. You've turned into a hopeless utopian. There is only one rule- the golden rule? This is of course what everyone wants! But it is not realistic. If every human being simply respected every other human being, there would be no need for laws. But this is not the case, as sometimes people do not respect others. I really think you should read Ayn Randand see what realistic measures capitalists support.

Gabo

The only part of government left would be the law of not initiating FORCE, and the justice system to enforce that law.

You and your comrades would have no state laws to "leave" from.

You could simply all sign a contract agreeing to abide by whatever commune rules you decide.




I support what you wish to do, so long as you do it voluntarily.

It's not fair to FORCE socialism followed by communism on the rest of us.


But you would be free to do it amongst yourselves if we had a free society.



-Every year the Republicrats increase federal spending
-Every year the Republicrats infringe upon more of our rights
-Every year the Republicrats give government more power

Also, while Bush cut many other programs, he still increased the size of the government.
Not only did he increase it to what inflation would allow, but went beyond that.

I guess "socialist" is not the right term.
They could be more properly dubbed "statist" or "authoritarian".



Of course people do not always respect others.

And that is why we need a law telling them to respect others, and a justice system to provide retribution if they don't respect others.


But that is simply all we need.

Anything else we include is done by personal opinion, and includes FORCING something on people that do not want it.

__________________
Libertarian (n.) - a selfish, money hoarding, drug using anarchist