/sci/ - Science & Math

Liberal free-market capitalist

1) government is important (im not an anarchist)
2) need government with a form of checks and balances (democracy isnt necessary but it is itself a form of check and balance)
3) need a society that plays on peoples desires (capitalism)

thats about as deep as my political views go, im not really into politics

Liberal free-market socialist here.

>>1884141
What do you think about manufacturing desires by pushing the psychological buttons of people?

>>1884134
+1

Used to be an anarchist when I was a little kid.
Then I became a capitalist once I became a teenager.
Now I'm a grown man and support a mixed socialist-capitalist sort of thing, leaning more towards socialism

>>1884150
this

>>1884156
I used to be a socialist when I was a kid.
Then I became a capitalist when I was a teenager.
Now I'm an anarcho-capitalist.

You're progressing in the wrong direction.

>>1884168
Anarchy is unproductive.
You can't build stuff or make progress in science.
Trust me, I play lots of CIV.
Representation ftw

>>1884152

I think its a grey area that you wont be able to find a solid cut off line for when that is ok or when it isnt. However, I think most peoples desires arent manufactured. I think the issue lies more in our society and less in our economy. Basically, the solution to problems of say people getting an over inflated idea of what they need in order to be successful and happy is something that should be solved in schools, not in stores.

I dont think capitalism is perfect, neither does or government, our economy isnt 100% free-market, but I think its a starting point.

When I was a kid I used to be Christian and conservative.
When I turned 12-13 I became a socialist and atheist.
Now I'm a totalitarian leftist. (I'm 23 now)

>>1884189
At least you're not a Christian fascist...

Anarchist syndicalist.

Anarchy because no man can have a legitimate claim on another mans freedom.

Syndicalism as it is an efficient, intelligent way to organize society and distribute resources.

Not capitalist as it is inherently totalitarian.

capitalism sounds good in principle - the harder you work the more you get, the less you work the less you get. But there are just too many loopholes, and the millionaires are just the guys who found out a way to make millions while everyone else does the work for you. Because of that capitalism fails.

>>1884209
> capitalism is inherently totalitarian
You syndicalism is just capitalism between feudal states. Enjoy your serfdom, peasant.

>>1884234

Thats called the lottery economy, and I'm very happy about that. It fills me with hope to know that you can score it lucky. Frankly, Id rather live in that society, then the one where there are almost no millionaires, cause frankly, no human has the capability to generate that amount of work product for it to be worth their services.

And thats why Capitalism WINS!

>>1884209
Anarchist syndicalism:
Everyone has a right to be free, but don't you dare try to own any property you don't plan on consuming right away. And don't EVEN THINK about owning a factory!

Ironic how a supposedly anarchist system is so coercive.

>>1884234
Interestingly, "The harder you work, the same you get" doesn't even sound good in theory.

>>1884245

Yeah, the idea of property is just an extension of organization because thats all it is, its increase organization. Any society that doesnt have a concept of ownership is always going to be much poorer and much less productive than one with. For the same reason any society without a government is going to be much poorer and less productive than one with.

>>1884255
wanted to add a bit more how I feel

The concept of ownership is a more cooperative system than the concept of public property, thats what I meant when I said its a form of organization. Its a form of cooperation, I own my car, and as such, I know it will be there in the morning for me to use. If it were public property, I wouldn't know if it was there for me or not, it would be chaotic, just a complete lack of cooperation and organizaiton

>>1884249

which is why a mix of socialism-capitalism is the best, since neither works in their purest forms

>>1884261

the concept of ownership is deeply rooted in the human mind, no law will change that.

>>1884128
did anyone else go to this?

>>1884245
Capitalistic representative democracy:
Everyone has a right to be free, but don't you even dare try attaining resources you need for survival unless you can afford it. And don't even THINK about owning a country!

See, capitalism and representative democracy is a massive step forward in the progress of freedom exactly because it abolished many forms of coercion which relied on owning things - the King all the land (and often your life). It however still institutes a limited form of tyranny, but tyranny nonetheless, in the form of private corporations (and the State, which is only partly democratic, relying much on misinformation and deceit). A corporation has all the power concentrated to the shareholders, and the people probably most affected - the workers - have very limited say, and outside sources have pretty much no say at all.

Capitalism will always become plutocracy.

>>1884261
Nothing which hinders your car from, in a system of public ownership, being assigned to you until further notice or case of emergency.

>>1884262
In its pure form, the free market has the fundamental theorems of welfare economics on its side. What does socialism have?

>>1884292
It's certainly welfare economics to let the poor starve and die of normally treatable disease!

>>1884289

>being assigned to you until further notice or case of emergency.

Um yeah, thats ownership, my car is "assigned" to me until further notice (dont pay for it) or in case of emergency (not sure about the laws on this) but you could still say you "own" something even if there was a law saying the government was allowed to take it in case of an emergency.

>>1884309
Not quite, as it does not shift hands through your control alone, but collective agreement.

But the line is thin, I admit.

>>1884300
> implying any economic system could possibly ensure no one dies of disease

>>1884321
wat

Of course not.

But a poor man cannot afford a health insurance, or a good enough health insurance, and can die from a disease he'd otherwise survive.

>>1884315

Yes, youre right, it can be a very grey area, I just dont like when people say the concept of ownership is evil. Its not, its extremely useful, its just an efficient way to "assign" property. And ultimately when you break it down into its parts, its a method of cooperating and organization.

>>1884249
lol confuse socialism with communism,
complain about communist theory,
???
profit

To all the
>herpaderp anarchy
people: Even Thomas Hobbes knew that anarchy was pure shit, and that's coming from a guy who's been dead for more than three centuries. If you hate property rights and the concept of a government with a monopoly on coercion so much, go live in Africa or some other shithole, and enjoy your 'freedom'.

Free market is nice when there are no market imperfections, but these imperfections (which are every-fucking-where) justify the need for government intervention. Therefore:
>liberal herp derp durr durr free markets
Go fuck off.

A system of capitalism combined with various degrees of socialism (as is the case in the Nordic countries) wins. If you don't agree, you know SHIT about economics.

quiet deist & libertarian

>>1884453
you don't know shit about economics Keynesian economics lead to the depression were in.
>Austrian Econ FTW

>>1884453
Protip: there are those of us that understand the term "free market" to be one in which externalities are resolved by governance. This, in fact, is standard economics fare. Your "mix socialism and capitalism" makes for entertaining read on opinion pages of shitty newspapers but it is about the most meaningless thing I can think of in terms of the study of economics.

My view is that everyone I know falls into one of two categories:
1) Extreme "winger" (left or right, doesn't matter)
2) Completely indifferent

I'm literally the only person I know who is at least somewhat informed on politics and isn't religiously fanatical about one of the two parties.

100% socialism won't work, and neither will 100% capitalism. Deal with it.

>>1884467

You'd know you're full of shit if you had actually studied economics, for instance labour economics. But then again, this is /sci/... it's just high school kids asking for help with their homework and /b/tards trolling with religion threads.

>>1884465
>Implying that it isn't the lack of government intervention that caused the recession.
>Implying it would've been so much better if you'd 'let the market do its thing'.

>>1884489
> throws a random study of market behavior around
> calls me a high school kid
> cannot justify his original mixed market hypothesis
> doesn't realize that I just proposed a mixed market in specific terms instead of nebulous ones
go away, you're bothering me

>>1884505

>Refers to a mix of capitalism with socialism as an entertaining read on opinion pages
>Apparently, has never heard of the Nordic welfare model, and the large amounts of economic literature written about the subject.

Sure is herpa derp in here.

>>1884489
>Implying the Fed didnt fuck everything up by using Keynesian theory to the interest rates to inflate housing market.
u mad

>>1884517
The implication is that "mixing socialism and capitalism" is meaningless, not that mixed markets are bad.

>>1884134
This. As long as they're environmentally regulated(by which I mean no dumping toxic waste places they've haven't paid to dump in etc.)

Everybody knows we need a technocracy.

> the Fed didnt fuck everything up by using Keynesian theory
nobody actually uses Keynesian economy

>>1884150

>>implying the terms "free market" and "socialism" can go together and still describe a system that can exist in reality...

LOL! U dumb.

Quite neutral.
Less liberal than minarchist, more than socialist.

>>1884168

If you want a glimpse of actual anarchy, go to /b/....
doesn't look too promising!

>>1884546

Could've just said that, instead of implying that the extreme simplification of the proposition is crap.

>>1884537
Well hey, at least you're not some kind of faggot who thinks the monetary and real economy aren't linked to each other. Too bad it's not the FED who's responsible for the recession. Protip: It's moral hazard.

What does it mean for the free market economies, when the economy that's growing the most is heavily regulated(china)

>>1884453
>used to live in sweden.

>Goverment took all my monies.

>???

>Now I live in Switzerland.

>Living standart here is higher

>unemplyment rate- 2.8% everyone here thinks its a disaster

>my face

Capitalism leads to inevitable destruction.

>>1884517
>implying the Nordic model is nost a liberal one.

>>1884587
Don't all systems?

>>1884587
Quoting Marx doesn't make you smart. Explain your statement.

I'm a little bit conservative. Pretty close to neutral though.
I don't like a lot of government. I just want to run my experiments in peace and protect my property with a gun.

>>1884577
Economic systems are not an attempt to foster growth per se but to allocate resources efficiently. Economic growth is in many ways correlated to population, incentives, and standard of living.

>>1884598
lol

>>1884596
>actually knows of quotes made by Karl Marx
Fucking fail and GTFO.

>>1884590

wtfamireading.jpg

>>1884577
Well, they use their massive funds to keep the yuan down so that people import more which means they produce more which means more economic growth. Not really outside the rules of free market economics. It's just less free and leftist.

>>1884577

That's mainly because WE are the ones borrowing the most from them on top of renting out the country to fuel OUR industry. Nevermind its oppressive regime and its shitty living conditions (outside of Hong Kong), right? LOL

>>1884577
>implying China's system would not blow out if there are no changes.

I acknowledge that capitalism is what encourages innovation in various fields and believe in a fairly capitalistic society where people can pursue their own goals and lifestyles as long as it doesn't hurt the rest of society, but I still support "socialist" things like universal health care and college education (64% of jobs in the near future will need post-high school training/education, but those are both increasingly expensive in the US), extensive mass transit, urban planning (tall apartment buildings > houses with wasted/destroyed land in suburbs), and proper regulation of the private sector to encourage fair and open competition. I also believe communication lines should be primarily built by the government and left for private ISPs to compete for customers (like it's done in Japan, Korea, and most European countries with drastically cheaper broadband). Welfare can be nice, but relying on it alone like the US does is just a disaster; I also think higher welfare checks should be rewarded toward those who prove they're working, or at least actively looking for a job, while welfare checks should diminish over time.

We also need to significantly cut down on military spending (even if we cut it by 75% we'd still dominate the world in military spending) and end bullshit contracts with oil and mercenary companies--I mean Private Military Contractors. Private health insurance should only have a market in supplemental, non-essential insurance. Private campaign financing needs to be abolished and elected officials need to have every financial transaction monitored and and easily open to the public if you ever want more than a handful of Congressmen that actually serve your interests.

Oh, and anarchists are typically hormonal kids who don't understand why being uncooperative and (generally) the riot-starters doesn't make people take them seriously

>>1884590
i bet you're French, right ?

>>1884566
Seconded.

>>1884577

Irrelevant. China has a high savings rate, thus they converge to a high level steady state, meaning that they have a high growth rate (until they finally closely approach the steady state).

>>1884629
I also believe in investing in alternative, renewable fuels. Oil and coal are primitive and the things they make people do for it are barbaric. There's absolutely no reason for investing in solar/wind/hydro/heat/etc power other than "but I just put stocks into Exxon"

dont mind me..

>(even if we cut it by 75% we'd still dominate the world in military spending)

>implying others countries are not increasing their military spending.

>>1884576
>implying the government didn't seed moral hazard
They still enabled people to borrow when the shouldn't have. The gov't is still corrupt as well from lobbying. Less government more freedom, and for fuck's sake let people fail, sometimes shit doesn't work out and it isn't the governments job to prop people/business up.

LIFES HARD BRO

>>1884633
I'm French and the French left wing always says "Herp derp look at the Swedish system it's so betteeeeer".
And, we who look at it, it is in some way incredibly more liberal that the French system.

>>1884648
The only (globally relevant) countries really increasing their military spending by a significant amount are countries like China, India or Pakistan. And none of those countries are doing so in opposition to us, but opposition to each other. Even so, even if they maintain the current military spending late, it's not like you'll be alive by the time they manage to match a fraction of our spending.

>>1884658
The structure in your second sentence makes no sense.

>>1884656

>implying that a non-government system would not lead to a plutocracy and private states.

Authoritarian statist socialist reporting in.

>>1884669
definitely would, but min-archy is the best. Government is a necessary evil. But we do need some of it.

Why do anarchyfags always assume that people are inherently good?

>>1884658
That's because it is more liberal than the French system in some aspects. France's government takes care of its citizens pretty well, but it offers too many services that the private sector would otherwise be able to compete and innovate in, which is why you're seeing services in these areas starting to liberalize in France.

I think most other leftists generally don't like acknowledging this because (a) most rightists [at least in America; not too familiar with French politics] are morons and see any acknowledgment of the benefits of capitalism as reasons to give corporations more power than they should have, or (b) those corporations realize how stupid their supporters are and pander to the rightists for pro-corporate votes.

>>1884684
because they live in carefully engineered and regulated progressive, prosperous societies and have no idea how the real human nature looks like

>>1884629

You are lucky to have very nice and relatively reliable things because of the princiles of the free market. If you want to eliminate the competition that drives up the quality of services and goods from something as important as healthcare, you're nuts.

>>1884691
I have no problem with private HOSPITALS; I have a problem with private INSURERS (who literally do nothing more than pool up money and redistribute it; no innovation possible in improving basic math. 2+2 will always equal 4) and the uncompetitive contracts they make hospitals sign. I also have a problem with our unregulated pharmaceutical companies that are actually allowed to pay doctors/hospitals to recommend their products to you. I could go on all day about the disgusting things that pharmaceutical and insurance companies do (as well as many hospitals) in the US due to a complete lack of adequate regulation, but that's what google is for. There's a reason we spend twice the OECD average per capita on health care, yet rank 37th in performance (that's below several former communist countries, a few South American ones, and Morocco, in case you didn't know). So yeah, I don't consider Americans that lucky when it comes to health care. Or household financing. Or households in general. But those are all different stories.

>>1884684

I could ask the same about FM Capitalists.

Why is it that people think that no one will try to screw other people over in the free market? That's one of the quickest and easiest ways to make money. Especially in industries where a person cannot easily tell the difference between a good product and a bad one. Or for that matter whether or not a product contains chemicals that are ulitmately poisons. Another problem is that pollution uses public land/water/air for dumping waste which can ultimately cause environmental problems that make large swaths of land unfit for human life or cause environmental damage.

I have no problem with capitalism, but it has to be regulated or it won't work well. Of course, I'm sure /sci/ can test their own drugs for purity...

I am brought in here only by the OP's post, but I swear to god if anybody responds with anarcho-anything I'm going to rage.... now reading thread

>>1884719
See though, what you said would be in absolutely no way controversial, unreasonable, or otherwise divisive. If you were to ask someone if they support companies dumping toxic waste into the river their community gets drinking water from, they'd obviously say no. But people are fucking stupid and if their party leaders feed them blanket, nebulous terms like "blah blah free market," half the country actually votes against their own interests just because the other side is full of evil communists wanting to convert their children to Islam and homosexuality.

>>1884719

Good point, and I fully agree with you. That's why pure capitalism with no checks and balances doesn't work. Neither does socialism, and anarchy sure as hell won't work.

A good balance of everything is required (free market, with government interventions in the case of imperfections); not some extremist policies.

>>1884719

>>Especially in industries where a person cannot easily tell the difference between a good product and a bad one. Or for that matter whether or not a product contains chemicals that are ulitmately poisons.

I'd agree with you if we lived in an alternate reality. People are stupid, but not as stupid as you think. Those things you mentioned catch up to companies one way or another, forcing them to make changes and improving the quality. When would the consumer not know if the quality of a product is good or bad? Explain.

>>1884725 here

>>1884642
is the only worthwhile post in this entire thread. Solow model wasssssuuuuuuuppppp

I'm a socialist, because I'm not a radical douche

>>1884740
Since when is "eventually in the free market" better than "before it even gets the chance to kill people because of regulation"?

>>1884740

Yes, and not because the government declares that they must, but because they reach points where it would be economically stupid not to do so if they wish to stay in business.

>>1884719
> Why is it that people think that no one will try to screw other people over in the free market?
There are three responses to this. One is that no one assumes this. The other is that, ideally, it can't happen at all. The third is that long-term cheating cannot work, but the cost of fighting short-term cheating is higher than the benefits.

Liberal/libertarian.

True liberalism is maintaining the individual rights regardless of the public good, in fact individual rights IS the public good. I don't go quite so far but lean toward libertarianism, that individual rights need to be maintained in light of the public good.

Essentially we should be free to make choices we want to make so long as they don't conflict with others rights to do the same.

Smoking is a perfect example. A true liberal should say it's an individual's choice to smoke and take the consequences to themselves. A libertarian should say it's not an individual's right to smoke because it inflicts on other's rights in public health and public health costs. Maintaining the public good supersedes the individual.

If you go too far in libertarianism of course you get anarchy. We all should be free to do whatever the hell we want and damn the consequences but that goes the same with too much liberalism and I have a hard time seeing a difference in the two.

Some libertarians are conservative even; believing that individual rights ought to be maintained in light of a religious moral code or traditional values. Glen Beck would be one of those (or so he claims). I don't like him much at all. We ought to be progressive, not conservative and we ought to respect the individual's rights to determine their own values ... within reason.

I'm thinking of changing my party affliation for the up coming elections in California, from democrate to the peace and freedom party. I know its a losing party (socialist party), but I'm kind of tired of the democrat/republican dominate party narrative going on in the U.S and in the state. Is it a good idea? I like what the peace and freedom party stand for, for the most part.

>>free market

haha faggot

All humanity needs is a Secular Technocratic Minarchism. Right and left wing views need to be adaptive in changing times with varying degrees.

Sleeping is like politics. One sleeps on the right side, and when you’re tired of that you sleep on the left. When you’re tired of that you sleep on your back, and when you’re tired of that you sleep on your stomach. And it is thus that the world goes round.

Right wingers = upper class
Left wingers = middle and lower class

>>1884764
No third party in the US is ever a good idea. You think it makes your voice heard more and the big party care, but it doesn't and they don't. If you want something more effective, write your Congressman and advocate a multi-party proportional representation system similar to those in every other country in the world that isn't a shithole.

I'm a conservative libertarian, because not wanting to change shit makes me a radical, amiright?

Expanding government is a terrible idea. Government run programs are drastically more inefficient then there private sector counter-parts.

>>1884780
2-party systems are stupid and divide people the most

protip:all the libertarian people never have had a job.
If they did they would know that working sucks balls and businesses would rape you in the ass if they could.

>>1884755

Again: When would the consumer not know if the quality of a product is good or bad?

>>1884742

Brofist, bro. Solow model is brilliant. I reproduced all of the calculations and results of Makiw, Romer & Weil's (1992) "A contribution to the empirics of economic growth" with different data for human capital once, and I still got nice R²s and signs of conditional convergence.

Technocracy, because everything else is retarded.

>>1884787
Yeah! Because a people that is divided into more than 2 parties is a people that is divided less! Wait....okay maybe that's not right. But the more major parties there are, the less powerful each of them becomes. Plus it creates a more chaotic and much less productive political climate.

>>1884792

Asymmetric information, high transaction costs, etc etc. I've read theories about it. Some of them were published in Furubotn and Richter's "Institutions and Economic Theory: The Contributions of theNew Institutional Economics"

>>1884810
can't tell if troll.

Multiparty, publicly-financed systems create the most stable governments in the world. You never really see any parties in Australia or France or Japan who are able to operate solely on calling everyone else evil like the Democrats and Republicans can do in the US.

>>1884810
>Yeah! Because a people that is divided into more than 2 parties is a people that is divided less!

Exactly. When there are many parties people don't outline each-other's political views so much, and the conflict isn't so organized.

And again, this is NOT the problem of the 2 party system. The main problem is that both parties are stupid as fuck.

>>1884799

Nice. I'm actually using Romer's book Advanced Macroeconomics right now... this book melts face, pro as fuck. Where would growth theory be without Solow-Swan?

In other news, this thread is full of fail.

Liberal socialist

Modernised Communism. End of story.

Free market.
Virtual Democracy
Strict Libertarian.

Free market regulates itself if you let it. (Didn't say it always chooses the best thing for little guys)
All people voting on all issues. This is possible with current tech.
Legislate only when there is absolutely no other way to deal with an issue.

>>1884868
=((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

>>1884868
You're fucking retarded

>>1884872
>>1884870
You lack anything resembling an argument.
Also, >attacking the author w/o addressing the argument

>>1884868
> Free market regulates itself if you let it.
True. Now all we have to do is understand how to regulate economic behavior to guarantee a free market.
> All people voting on all issues. This is possible with current tech.
It is not possible, and even if it were, it is an absolutely horrible idea. The whole point of modern market economies involves specialization. Politicians are in line with specialization. I don't want to be an expert on all matters, even if I could be an expert on all matters.
> Legislate only when there is absolutely no other way to deal with an issue.
Either I take this literally, and have to say that there is no way to ever guarantee the condition (yielding anarchy), or I take it figuratively and wonder why you suppose anyone thinks otherwise.

>>1884814

Yes, but when the consumers are ultimately the ones using the products, wouldn't they trust their own observations and satisfaction level the most. In most cases, the potential transactions that can occur for a product don't end when the consumer buys it. It can still be returned and complaints filed. Then, if the consumer wishes, they can start some sort of campaign against the product, whether it be sharing bad reviews on the internet or wherever. The opinion of the consumer is a very powerful thing and usually prevails. Government intervention slows that prevalence down like they do with every fucking thing they touch. As far as the whole poison thing, not going to argue with you on that one unless you're talking about tobacco, marijuana, alcohol, and whatnot.

>>1884896
Free market. I hate it. It disgust me.

>>All people voting on all issues. This is possible with current tech.

Uhhhhhh....no it isn't. There literally wouldn't be enough time in the day.

>>1884868

That idea scares me seeing that the majority of people are retards, look up science literacy statistics in America for example. Also minorities will get butt-raped and people only believe what is fed to them through media anyway.

>>1884905
Same

Communist when I was a kid, nationalist when I was a teenager, Social Liberal now.

Wow....

The coming generation sure is a hopelessly lost one!

>>1884921
Wohoo I haz lots of toys capitalism when I was a kid, communism as a teenager, in-between technocracy as an adult.

>>1884921
You lost track badly.

>>1884912

if "the media" can convince others to think like them the way they do then good for them, I don't see what the problem is

>>1884896
>True. Now all we have to do is understand how to regulate economic behavior to guarantee a free market.
This we agree on. My position is that it is better than a completely controlled market or planned economy.

>It is not possible, and even if it were, it is an absolutely horrible idea. The whole point of modern market economies involves specialization. Politicians are in line with specialization. I don't want to be an expert on all matters, even if I could be an expert on all matters.

First, it is definitely possible. Biometrics and current cryptographic methods make it possible to allow the entire populace to vote on issues even on a daily basis. If not that, it is certainly reasonable to vote on big shit that comes up say, quarterly.
Second, You need not be an expert on everything. The politicians certainly are not experts on anything other than public speaking. You can simply cast your vote on things that matter to you and vote you opinion if you like. What becomes law will be determined by the opinion of everyone that votes on a given issue.

>Either I take this literally, and have to say that there is no way to ever guarantee the condition (yielding anarchy), or I take it figuratively and wonder why you suppose anyone thinks otherwise.

Literal interpretation does not imply anarchy. There are many ways to deal with issues without legislation, how do you think the internet works? No country is out there making rules for what protocols to use and how fast things go. I say only that a government should legislate when it absolutely has to, this is determined in many ways but essentially when the public calls for legislation in mass, we legislate if not, we wait and see how it goes first. Believe it or not, this is not currently the case at least in my country.

>>1884944
Not letting other people think for themselves is always bad

>>1884903

Yup. Those factors are all incorporated in those theories listed in the text I noted the reference for.

btw, I'm not the guy you were originally having a discussion with; just wanted to throw that in there.

>>1884763
fucking hell you have that completely backwards
liberals = good of society; libertarian = good of the individual

Anarcho-monarcist here /sci/

Any other communists in here?

>>1884971
me

>>1884975
=D

>>1884962

I was wondering when someone was going to point thins out. lol. I was thinking the same thing.

>>1884975

D8

Kill it!

>>1884986
=(

Why? It's so nice.

>>1884951
> Biometrics and current cryptographic methods make it possible to allow the entire populace to vote on issues even on a daily basis.
I believe you are confusing several layers of what is essentially an engineering problem. It's like saying we know how to build bridges, and we have lots of bricks, so of course we can build a bridge to the moon. You are correct, 100%, that that technology exists. It is very obvious to me that we are in no way prepared to apply that technology in such a way as to allow regular voting by the population. Even if we could somehow manage to convince even 50% of the population to create identities and cryptographically secure passphrases in order to use such a system for voting, the process of creating daily ballots and tallying these votes would be an extremely large task. Ever notice that the IRS is always way behind in terms of audits? Now multiply that times 365. Insanity ensues.
> If not that, it is certainly reasonable to vote on big shit that comes up say, quarterly.
Maybe, but it is not clear to me what problem you see that this is supposed to solve. Voter turnout is already poor. If you think issue-voting is more appealing than politician-voting (popularity contests), then I think you are mistaken about the number of issues politicians face regularly. As flawed as representation is (it's lossy compression, right?), it is vastly superior to 4chan organizing votes to push some NASA bill through because of direct democracy. If you think special interests run washington now, wait until weekly issue voting pushes people at the margin in voting right off the ballot.

THIS THREAD IS GOING TO EXPLODE

>>1884912
In a system like that you need only advertise you opinion.
People can accept it or not. I agree that it could be lousy at first, but with this level of participation required of the citizen, he may be more inclined to learn about the issues coming up. We are also nearing the end of the age of mass media, future generations are slowly learning to trust the media less and get more information sources.

On you comment for the minorities: who would those be exactly?
The blacks, the Hispanics?
Or maybe the anglo-saxtons, the nordics, or the europeans in general?

These groupings should be meaningless in our current system because what matters to a local group should matter regardless of ethnic background.
We make those groups and post issues as they only matter to that group in a particular locality. What we should be doing is grouping by locality.
There are not black only issues in my town, there are not black vs white sides to an issue.

When we are all one group voting on an issue these sub groups truly are meaningless. Tie that together with the idea of only legislating when you have to and this should not be a problem.

>>1884134
>>1884150

That's pretty ironic.

>>1885013
Never heard of Krugman, eh?

I vote for the conservative party (høyere) in Norway, but by american standards, they are liberal.

So i'm a liberal free-market capitalist. Like >>1884134

>>1885030
You make me very sad. How can support such a terrible system as capitalism?

>>1885030
Haha stupid faggot

>>1885004
> People can accept it or not. I agree that it could be lousy at first, but with this level of participation required of the citizen, he may be more inclined to learn about the issues coming up.
At what cost? Learning about anything is not free. It takes a lot of time. Where will that come from?
> We are also nearing the end of the age of mass media, future generations are slowly learning to trust the media less and get more information sources.
I hope you're right, because to my 34-year old ears, it sounds like the right is winning its war against academia while the media is doing fine. If you can't trust the media, and you can't trust academia, then you've basically *guaranteed* that charlatans will control the country, because no one will know anything.

>>1885030
Because it works better than anything else we have ever tried. (for me, and that's the important part)

>>1884999
To clarify, the issue I hope to solve is representatives that are not representing.
I am also interested in seeing what the people can do rather than maintaining a general distrust of the masses.
I do not agree that implementing this voting scheme is similar to bridge building in any way, even as a metaphor. This has some hurdles like setting up a system with minimal room for hackers to fuck with the results but the implementation is doable and the counting is as easy as polling on websites. The IRS is a different matter, the system is extraordinarily complicated, this is just counting.
Additionally, the infrastructure is already in place it's not like having a pile of bricks in one place and a bridge needing built in another. Many states already do electronic voting or counting an have had success with it.
At a minimum we can setup a system where each representative can have a secure polling system for their constituents and a mandate to vote the way their constituents voted given that more than say, 30% actually vote on the issue.

>>1885049
YOU ASS.
YOU COMPLETE IGNORANT ASS!
>:(

I'll just leave...

>>1884970
Are sure that makes any sense, anon?

>>1885045
While learning may not be free, it is damn cheap and getting cheaper all the time.
Additionally, if I vote on issues that matter to me, it can be presumed that the issue matters to me because I know something about it to begin with.
While this is not guaranteed by any means neither is it guaranteed in a representative democracy when one votes for a representative and with representatives are harder to replace than laws would be in a virtual democracy.
When you can re-vote on any issue next month, it's not that big of a deal if you implement regulation and it doesn't work out the way you thought it would.
Whereas, if Obama promises change and delivers more of the same, we have to wait 4 years to fix that.

>>1885058
Thanks for the clarification.

> I am also interested in seeing what the people can do rather than maintaining a general distrust of the masses.
I have no distrust of the masses. I think they have better things to do than vote constantly---with all that entails---on the political organization of the country.

> This has some hurdles like setting up a system with minimal room for hackers to fuck with the results but the implementation is doable and the counting is as easy as polling on websites.
Having worked on such problems, I can only say that I disagree that this is practical at all. You are correct, and I am not disagreeing, that the problem of "how do you cast an anonymous vote that you can verify and that cannot be denied" *has* been solved, mathematically speaking (if modern cryptographic means are sound), I do not believe this in any way at all implies it can be scaled to any kind of direct democracy.
> At a minimum we can setup a system where each representative can have a secure polling system for their constituents and a mandate to vote the way their constituents voted given that more than say, 30% actually vote on the issue.
I have often wished for something like this. But of course, nothing stops representatives now from representing better through polling. The real question is the emphasis on representation. Those of us, like me, who feel that representatives should represent the interests of their constituency, including unpopular opinions, feel that direct democracy hurts this cause, and additionally, imposes even more costs on individuals to keep up with politics. As we are already, nationally, largely unwilling to keep up with politics at their current cost, it is hard for me to understand how increasing the cost could have the impact you're hoping for.

>>1885091
I disagree but I will let this condense to a single thread of conversation in >>1885116 if you don't mind.

>>1885116
Personally I am willing to keep up with politics to only a limited extent. This is mostly due to how little an impact the general populace has. Currently, you have to do a great deal of work to get your opinion heard if it differs from those expressed by the largest party or the media. While this is not an impossible hurdle and the parties usually represent many opinions, it is less efficient than simply asking people what they think.

Your concern for unpopular opinions is at least partially addressed by the more fluid nature of law that results from this kinda of issue voting.
If we go with what's popular and that turns out to not work like we hoped, we need only vote again.

I'm being a bit fantastical here but the essential point is that I believe the issues surrounding a virtual democracy at not too different form those of a representative democracy and they can be solved to a point where this is doable.

>>1885130
not at all, typing two responses at a time was getting silly.

>>1885170
I shudder at the prospect of losing hours and hours of free time a week to keeping up with politics to the extent I feel that a more direct democracy would require. Time is an extremely scarce resource. Replacing a representative with a poll gives me only the most dubious of gains in terms of reliability of representation, and seems to have significant costs.

> Your concern for unpopular opinions is at least partially addressed by the more fluid nature of law...
I agree with the principle, but disagree with the practice. I would prefer an inherent sunset clause in regulation. All legislation must expire every, say, two years. This can be augmented with a generational system, so that laws which have been upheld for five successive votes graduate to a longer time frame. The specifics are up for debate.

> I believe the issues surrounding a virtual democracy... can be solved to a point where this is doable.
I think you have underestimated the costs considerably. If you have the ability, I suggest you implement some kind of small direct democracy in a system in your personal life, at work, with friends, with family. Vote on dinner once a week. Whatever. Don't approximate it---do it, from start to finish; secure, anonymous voting. If the coding task is outside you, tax yourself and your friends and hire someone from rentacoder.com or craigslist. I think you will be very, very surprised at the level of bureaucracy required to implement and maintain a system of "counting," as you've put it.

>>1884249
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

I did not realise that /sci/ was full of dumbfuck capitalists, who believe what their pastor says.

>>1885268
You know nothing of what you speak.
You need to learn more and then come back with better supported position.

>>1885263
>which have been upheld for five successive votes graduate to a longer time frame. The specifics are up for debate.
Sounds good to me. I have considered this before, indeed, event he specifics can be handled in this manner. IE- we vote to implement time graduated limits on laws. (Something we need to have in the first place. Fucking laws on witchcraft in some states still, seriously wtf?)

>small scale implementation
Okay, but I encourage you to do the same. You may be surprised how easy this is.

Many websites do exactly the type of polling necessary, the only differences are how big the central servers are, what protocols to use to send the information, how to ensure that all the votes make it there unaltered, and what method to use to sign each vote.
Aside from the physical assets required, this appears to be just a matter of making those decisions and improving for efficiency.
When considering the cost you must also consider what costs we have in the current government. Things like inefficiency, wasted time on elections, holy crap wasted money on elections, projects and issues raised only because of elections, projects that get funding just so one can be elected again. There are more and some apply in either system but there you have it.

>>1885341
> any websites do exactly the type of polling necessary, the only differences are how big the central servers are, what protocols to use to send the information, how to ensure that all the votes make it there unaltered, and what method to use to sign each vote.
This is *definitely* not the only difference and this is why I don't feel you properly understand the scope of the problem direct democracy implies on any scale. For example: how are you going to ensure the *continued* security of the system? It is not "set it and forget it." How are you going to decide what to vote on without representatives to control issues? The phrasing of questions can significantly impact perception of what is being asked, and therefore influence the answer. Are you prepared to satisfy challenges raised by people who say that questions which represented their interests were unfairly presented?

I'm not trying to be nitpicky. Most of these problems are smaller, or non-existent, under representative democracy. These are a few I just thought up due to this conversation.

Information aggregation is an extremely, extremely large problem with considerable debate over the years, especially since Arrow's Impossibility Theorem showed that our naively-desirable conditions for an aggregation method in voting were mutually contradictory.

>>1885430
I have already ceded that security is a major issue. Cryptography secures the means of delivery but one must still secure the physical voting locations and the location where the data is collected. That being said voting locations are even optional depending on authentication. At the collection point this is a difficult situation, but not impossible. Obviously, whoever is trusted with the server will have control, this can be mitigated by collecting the data in stages as we already do during presidential voting.
>Selection of issues and presentation.
This can be taken care of by voting on more local issues than national ones. If the majority of laws apply within smaller locales it will of course be easier to bring an issue to vote. Essentially, you use the same method we use now in the congress. An issue is presented by an interested party, proponents express support. If there is enough support, the issue goes to vote. If enough local areas are voting the same of similar issues into law, and the issue is on national interest then it can be presented with support the the nation as a whole.

>>1885709
Anyway, I also have already ceded that it may be best implemented with representatives. This puts less importance on who gets elected although they should still be trustworthy and this also reduces the risks associated with this system since there is still a human element in control who can decide if something went wrong or potentially vote for the populace if a failure occurs.
I must stress the presentation of an issue should be determined by the party submitting it. It can be refined while support for the idea is developed but an arbitrary body creating questions would never work.
>Information aggregation
I admit that I am not well read in social choice theory but from what I gather this is an issue no mater what system you are using.

I understand that there are hurdles but you have not yet presented anything that is extraordinarily difficult to solve.
There are big gains to be realized in improving the representation of the public's interest.
There are costs as always, but then there are costs in the current system as well, as I have presented.

What specifically do you see as the biggest issue related to cost here? (lol wall of text)

Conservative free market capitalist here.

Socialism
Anyone who still believes in capitalism is hopeless

>>1885832
>USSR
anyone who still believes socialism can work on a scale large than a village is hopeless.

Left libertarian.

inb4 hipster.

>>1885850
hipster :P

Liberal second amendment supporter. Right leaning.

However i don't really affiliate with any one theory aside from the constitution and empiricism.

>>1884489

the way I've heard it (from Austrian economists) is that government intervention did encourage the housing bubble and the loan crisis, and the fact that they're bailing out the companies is letting the companies know that they can fuck up and have a trillion dollar safety net to fall into.

the worst part is how unconcerned the general public is about trillion dollar deficits every year. I really don't think they understand how much a trillion dollars, how long it would take to pay back, and how the only real solution at this point is inflation and paying back treasury bonds with hyper-inflated cheap money. and that means shit for everyone.

I created up my own political system

Its where there are a federal governments and state governments.

But state governments differ wildly from one another

Basically if you get enough followers the federal government funds to create of your own city.

where you can live under any political system that you want as long as you mean certain standards(health, no brainwashing, no genocide,ect....)

and anyone can emigrate from any city any other easily and at will.

This political system would work best on future moon colonies

>>1885845
Hey I said socialism not communism
Most European countries are socialists and it works great.

>>1885935

for now. European "socialist" countries are based on unsustainable means of providing their citizens with shit. Denmark is in gonna trouble when their oil is gone. Greece...lol.

>>1885935
thats because most European countries have a much lower population then the united states

>>1885935
Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources. -wiki

Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless society structured upon communal ownership of the means of production and the end of wage labour and private property. -wiki

Same philosophy is the fucking same.

>>1885971
I don't believe people should own corporations
But I do believe that government ran programs and regulation of businesses are a good thing.
Also the rich people should be taxed more because they got their wealth from the people who brought their products. Its only fair.
The only exceptions are banks. I definitely think we should get rid of private banks and have one government ran bank. That way the money will flow into the government instead of a CEO's pocket.
Also we would be able to get rid of the federal reserve(the middle man)

>>1885927
Germany post ww2 = US here in a minute.

Hyperinflation here we come.

>>1885935
>>1886031

how is this thread still alive? it's full of trolls and idiots, why can't it have just eaten itself alive hours ago?

>>1886031
bleeding heart liberal is stupid and liberal

The government is far more corrupt then corporations

also corporations are better at managing money

SpaceX falon=78 million to launch

NASA ares1=1.5 billion

and The falcon9 carries more into orbit

>>1886046
yup. more recent examples are Zimbabwe and Argentina

>>1886051
couldn't agree more. government-run anything is rampant with inefficiencies.

>>1886047
Because it's politics. Any mention of politics anywhere causes this.

This thread will continue until post limit. Maybe even after that.

>>1886051
>>1886051
And you're a stubborn redneck
Its clear that corporation are way more corrupt
Just take a good look at this past decade.
Banks loaning money like its candy despite them knowing it wasn't sustainable in the long run, Enron inflating its stock prices, Madoff making billions out of his ponzi scheme and oil and weapons industries creating false evidence to wage war against Iraq and profit, corporations making headquarters overseas to avoid taxes and outsourcing jobs to save money at the expense of the American people.
We can easily avoid government corruption if we set a system with more transparency.

>>1886117
>someone with different views
>stubborn redneck

thats a typical liberal insults people who disagrees with them

the irony is that they are supposed to stand for tolerance
also governments are more corrupt because politicians are corrupted by power

power is the goal of the government it has been that way since the dawn of humanity

The goal of corporations is to make money corruption is another way to make money

for governments power is the main goal

for corporations its a way to make money

I think the one who has power a a main goal is more corrupt

Mixed economy, military for defense purposes only

>>1886145
Corporations are in it for power too
When corporations get power they have the capability to eliminate the competition and are able to make more money.
Also the power that politicians hold is not that great.
There is 100 senators and 400 something representatives. Each of them only holds office for a set amount of years. Its in their best interest to get on people's good side in order for them to get re-elected. The founding fathers thought the constitution through you know.

>>1886117

You do realize that the whole "business cycle" thing with all the booms and crashes is CREATED by the Federal Reserve banking system's artificial manipulation of the value of the dollar, don't you?

Social progressive.
Economic fence sitter who enjoy antagonizing both sides.

>>1886161

>Also we would be able to get rid of the federal reserve(the middle man)

>>1886159
>Each of them only holds office for a set amount of years. Its in their best interest to get on people's good side in order for them to get re-elected
What the people don't know won't hurt them right?

>When corporations get power they have the capability to eliminate the competition and are able to make more money.
still a means to an ends

not the main goal

>>1886161
No actually the federal reserve prevents that.
The reason why it was created was to avoid black Tuesday from ever happening again.
I don't know whether we should go back to the gold standard though. I was referring to the federal's reserve control on interest mostly.

I pretty much support all the non-environmental policies of the NZ Green party, plus additional funding for science and technology. I think capitalism is pretty good most of the time, but doesn't always do what's best for the people.

An example of this could be beaches. I like my beaches free, I don't like big fucking piers built on them, and I like keeping shops and stuff away so everyone can have an equal experience. I love NZ beaches, in most other places I'm not such a big fan.

>>1886178

I DONT EVEN the fed is what gets us into these messes. they have devalued the hell out of our currency and are setting the US up for the same fate Argentina met a few years ago.

You dont have another dude hold your dick when you piss do you?

Dont rule over my life.
Fuck off. I hope you all die. Which you all will, someday.

A political view is usually synonymous with ideology, which is by definition unscientific.