[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 52 KB, 640x512, obama-obama-politics-retards-liberals-democrats-dumb-stupid-demotivational-poster-1245350620.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3900443 No.3900443 [Reply] [Original]

ITT: We try to fix the system.

Political parties are abolished. We vote representatives from each territory and they all collectively form government.

All politicians earn minimum wage. They and their families may not receive money from third party donations.

Inb4 political science is not a science

>> No.3900458

>implying system is broken

1) What is the incentive to become a politician?

2) What is achieved from abolishing political parties? Instead of groups with political beliefs, you have independents with political beliefs. (some of whom will have similar beliefs as other people and effectively form a party).

3) Sorry /sci/ for feeding the stupid

>> No.3900470

>>3900443
Something that might actually work -

Fix the voting system to remove winner take all. Remove from the culture this nonsense that laissez faire works, and that rich people have as much right of private property as poor people. Do some moderate wealth redistribution plans, such as just progressive taxation. The goal is human happiness and material well being, which depends on capitalism working, which depends on there being some incentive to work.

>> No.3900504

>1) What is the incentive to become a politician?

None. That's the entire point.

>2) What is achieved from abolishing political parties? Instead of groups with political beliefs, you have independents with political beliefs. (some of whom will have similar beliefs as other people and effectively form a party).

Cuts out all the bullshit we have. The idea of I VOTE DEMOCRATS COZ THEY MY TEAM fades out.

>> No.3900511

>>3900470
>Fix the voting system to remove winner takes all
I imagine you're referring to abolishing FPP. In New Zealand we have a system of MMP, which does this to some extent.

>Laissez Faire
Works. I hardly think that it is 'nonsense' when almost all economists are in favour of it. I'm interested at where you draw the line though, are you in favour of tariffs?

>Private Property
I'm interested in your argument for this. Not sarcastic, I'm legitimately interested.

>Wealth redistribution + progressive tax
USA (assuming you're from there) already has progressive tax? But I agree with you on wealth redistribution.

>> No.3900512

>>3900443
Sounds like Canada

>> No.3900522

>>3900504
1) So your goal is anarchy? Or just laws written by toilet cleaners?

2) Ok. I agree there is a gang mentality in parliaments. Particularly in the states. At least shit gets done though - try putting hundreds of independents together and make them write a law. It would be like posting a thread on /sci/ about religion.

>> No.3900525
File: 7 KB, 316x283, 9pzup7wf6m83qb32i1lr.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3900525

Copy Marshall Brain's 'Manna'.

>> No.3900526

>>3900511
>[Laissez-faire] Works.
No.
>I hardly think that it is 'nonsense' when almost all economists are in favour of it.
Lies.
>I'm interested at where you draw the line though, are you in favour of tariffs?
Tariffs depending on the situation. I'm more concerned about situations of externalities, tragedies of the commons, free rider problem, when freely available information is costly to acquire, when humans deviate from perfectly rational self interested agents, when people's time horizons differ, and so on.

> >Wealth redistribution + progressive tax
>USA (assuming you're from there) already has progressive tax? But I agree with you on wealth redistribution.
Then we need more. The wealth disparity is too great. With finite private property, one person's enjoyment of that property is a denying of someone else's right to enjoy that property. Also, too great of wealth differences I think destabilizes democratic republics and can lead to tyranny.

>> No.3900560

>1) So your goal is anarchy? Or just laws written by toilet cleaners?
If the toilet cleaners get voted in, I guess. But you can't deny there would be a lot of educated candidates that would put their name up for the job.

>2) Ok. I agree there is a gang mentality in parliaments. Particularly in the states. At least shit gets done though - try putting hundreds of independents together and make them write a law. It would be like posting a thread on /sci/ about religion.

The only reason it takes a long time is because politicians are peddling their bullshit through the media to influence people that option x is a good/bad thing. If there were no political parties there would be no reason to vilify the opponents decisions through the media.

>> No.3900564

the entire system needs to move past ideology but it won't be achieved simply by abolishing political parties.

>> No.3900583

>>3900511

>Thinks laissez faire capitalism works
>Also wants wealth redistribution

Derp

Ever since we've moved further towards free, unregulated markets we've been growing more unstable. Hell, Greenspan admitted to being surprised that he got Clinton to give the free markets more power, and later realized that it wasn't a good idea.

We don't even have a truly capitalist system, we have whats called state capitalism, and without it the system would implode.

>> No.3900586

Has anyone said that democracy makes no sense yet?

If not:

Democracy makes no sense.

Ask yourself "Is the majority necessarily more or less right than the minority?" I hope youd answer "no." On top of that we have problems as to whether people even know what they need/want. Just like how a doctor provides you with care that you werent aware you needed, politicians will provide people with policy that the people might not understand.

>> No.3900597

>>3900586
Oh great. Resident /sci/ idiot has to put his worthless 2 cents in.

>> No.3900599

>>3900586
Well, that's good because we don't live in a democracy. We live in a democratic republic. Too bad frequently many people forget this tidbit.

By the by, this is what the federalist papers had to say about democracy.
>Even if every Athenian was a /Socrates/, every Athenian assembly would still be a /mob/.

>> No.3900600

>>3900526
>[Laissez-faire] Works.
Does. Milton Friedman said so.

>Tariffs depending on the situation.
Greg Mankiw described free trade as 'promising not to shoot yourself in the foot, if someone else promises to to shoot themselves in the foot too'. I can think of any reason for having a tariff, except to set up a specialised industry as Singapore did. When you force someone to buy a product that is more expensive to make (by placing tariffs on the international alternative), you just take away their ability to buy something else with the money they would have saved. Not only does it reduce the efficiency of the economy, but dictates to people how they should spend their own money.

>Externalities, tragedies of the commons, free rider problem, when freely available information is costly to acquire, when humans deviate from perfectly rational self interested agents, when people's time horizons differ
Fair enough.

> >Wealth redistribution + progressive tax
It's naive to look at wealth by taking one section of time. First, a lot of the poorer people in society are younger, and lot of the richer ones are older. However there is a bottom end of society and always will be. It's easy just to 'give them more money' and close the wealth gap, but the best way to improve their quality of living is through technology, cheaper products etc. When you tax the rich more to provide supplementary income for the poor, you reduce the money they can invest in other places (the rich don't just have chests of cash lying around, it's invested). This significantly limits economic growth, and limits the quality of life of the poorest in society. I believe that the rich should be taxed more than the poor, just certainly not more than they are currently.

>> No.3900605

>>3900599

Nonetheless, the problems with democracy exist whether you are voting on policy or whether you are voting on who gets to represent you in the republic.

Also super great green text quote. I like it. It vaguely illustrates the problems with democracy.

>> No.3900606

You can't fix democracy, no matter what you do.
The problem is with the ideological idea of equality.
And no, I'm not talking about races and sexes.

I'm talking about the fact that they ask too much from the average voter. Why ask people who don't know anything on the subject? Why doesn't the important and useful people have extra or more important votes? Why does my vote is equal to a professors's?

>> No.3900610

>>3900600
>It's easy just to 'give them more money' and close the wealth gap,
I am not interested in removing the wealth gap, merely lessening it as I feel it is too outrageous now.

>but the best way to improve their quality of living is through technology, cheaper products etc.
This is an empirical claim. I might disagree with it. Perhaps I didn't emphasize enough how I feel that the wealth disparities are greatly affecting our free state, and I am also concerned from that angle.

>When you tax the rich more to provide supplementary income for the poor, you reduce the money they can invest in other places (the rich don't just have chests of cash lying around, it's invested). This significantly limits economic growth, and limits the quality of life of the poorest in society. I believe that the rich should be taxed more than the poor, just certainly not more than they are currently.
This is again an empirical claim. I think I disagree with your characterization of it - that is to say I think your particular characterization is factually false. I think that those methods are very useful and indispensible, but I think that you are wrong to dismiss this other option at our disposable.

>> No.3900612

>>3900605
>Problems still exist.
Yes, and?

If you have a superior solution, please propose it.

>> No.3900623

>>3900612

Yeah, Im being a big fag because I dont have a better solution.

But I do think, people in general over stress the importance of a system. They want this system of representation, or that system of legislature, or something else that they feel is more efficient.

I suspect that the quality of the policy system is significantly less important than the quality of the policy makers.

>> No.3900628

>>3900606

You sound like a communist.

>> No.3900631

>>3900623
Yes? That is obvious. The problem is how to choose those good policy makers. Hence, democractic republic.

>> No.3900642

>Political parties are abolished. We vote representatives from each territory and they all collectively form government.

Enjoy your clusterfuck where nothing gets done.

>All politicians earn minimum wage. They and their families may not receive money from third party donations.

Enjoy having no politicians, since nobody will want to take such a horrible job. Especially the educated part of the population realises that the opportunity cost is too great and that they might as well get a proper paying job. Only people who might still be interested in such a job (mainly hippies) would not get any votes, since nobody gives a flying fuck about them.

Your suggestions would result in anarchy, or at the very least a terribly inefficient government. Not saying that the current system is great, but it's still better than what you propose.

>> No.3900646

>>3900631

Why is it a choice at all? Maybe its just a social/cultural mechanism that instills values into people. Maybe we just have bad people in America. Maybe we have a culture that discourages people from entering politics.

>>3900642

I think someone pointed out once that in australia legislature doesnt earn a way. The reasoning for this is beyond me.

>> No.3900653

>>3900610
I guess we disagree on each other's characterizations of the world. To be fair I don't study economics, just have an interest in it. Have you seen Milton Friedman's Free to Choose?

>>3900583
'hurr durr capitalism' My experience in New Zealand is that everything privatised is being run well. Up until the 1980s we struggled as a country, and since the liberal economic reforms of David Lange's government our quality of living has increased significantly, bringing us into the modern world. I understand that the US has a 'corrupt' brand of capitalism, but you have far more government influence in markets than a lot of the modern world. To blame everything on 'capitalism' is naive.

>> No.3900658

>>3900653
>I guess we disagree on each other's characterizations of the world.
To be clear, we disagree with each other's factual claim about the world.

>Milton Friedman's Free to Choose?
Sorry, haven't read it. It's on my list.

>> No.3900661

>>3900653

Did you like free to choose? I havent seen it, but Ive heard of it.

"Everything reminds Milton Friedman about the money supply. Everything reminds me of sex but I keep that out of my papers" - Super Economist Robert Solow

>> No.3900670

>>3900646

wut

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/pol/parlrem.htm

>> No.3900677

>>3900661
>>3900658
Yes, it's amazing, it's effectively Carl Sagan's cosmos for economics. Watch the 1980's video series, there's torrents for it everywhere. I disagree with some of his arguments, but he honestly converted me to a moderate libertarian (if that's such a thing). It was just an entire new way of thinking. Particularly that he was always somewhat anti-wall street, anti economists, anti beaurocracy.

>> No.3900682
File: 2.45 MB, 208x131, RobotnikIsMad.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3900682

>>3900661

>Super Economist Robert Solow
>Super

ALL OF MY WHY

>> No.3900698

>>3900642
Conjecture.

>> No.3900711

>>3900698

It's axiomatic that people won't work if they don't benefit from it.

>> No.3900722

>>3900711

If you restrict "benefit" to "salary", you have a pretty poor model.

I go into politics, remove the restrictions on oil drilling in national parks, retire.

No longer in politics, there is no law to stop me from getting donations, so an oil magnate decides to give me a few million quid. Almost as if we planned it in advance.

>> No.3900729

>>3900722
>If you restrict "benefit" to "salary", you have a pretty poor model.

It's not. But what else does such a system have to offer? Would people do it solely for recognition (and would we *want* such people to represent the population)? Do you think there are many 'altruistic' people out there, and would their ideas correspond to those of the population?
I don't see how this form of representation would be viable.

>> No.3900741

>>3900729

>Would people do it solely for recognition
Yes.

>(and would we *want* such people to represent the population)? Do you think there are many 'altruistic' people out there, and would their ideas correspond to those of the population?
I think people will still go into politics, and not just hippies. There are strong vested interests in the political process. A corporation could well require its junior managers to do a year in Congress before being eligible for promotion. It's quite rational to take a year of minimum wage in exchange for higher lifetime income. It's absurd to claim there would be no politicians.

>> No.3900757

>>3900443
The idea that regular people are capable of running the country is idiotic.
Representative democracy was intended to enable people to vote for ideology, not specific issues.
You should not be able to vote for/against war, but on a (relatively) pacifistic ideology (be it party, person, or whatever), or an aggressive faction.
You should not be able to vote for/against bailouts, you should vote for a party that supports monetary equality, or a party that suports economic efficiency.

>> No.3900783

>>3900729
>>3900741
>>3900722

>If you restrict "benefit" to "salary", you have a pretty poor model

I agree, a lot of internships are unpaid, or pay very little. The benefit is in terms of meeting future potential employers and work experience.

Anyway, I think people in general derive a lot of purpose and autonomy from their work that they appreciate on a far deeper level than just monetary compensation.