How do we reform the US political system to put leaders in office

[TheStatutoryApe]

Have you ever taken an economics course Ape?

Nope. That's why I'm waiting for you to explain to me how enforcing ethical business practices will make the system something other than capitalism or restrict free trade. To me it's like saying that not allowing people to steal is restricting their freedoms and is someone is not allowed to steal then they must not be free. We're dealing with reality here not purist idealism.

How so? I don't think ownership is ethical at all, I'm arguing moderately with you now Ape, ultimately I advocate the complete abolition of property and any barter or trade based economics.

Property is theft huh?
If you like the idea of an anarchist state, then how would people get what they needed if not by barter and trade? I'm making an assumption here since you've said before that you are an anarchist, sort of.

 

[Smurf]

Nope. That's why I'm waiting for you to explain to me how enforcing ethical business practices will make the system something other than capitalism or restrict free trade. To me it's like saying that not allowing people to steal is restricting their freedoms and if someone is not allowed to steal then they must not be free. We're dealing with reality here not purist idealism.

Right now. The economic system, we'll call it system A, has policies not of Free Trade, that's a bit misleading, but of Free-er trade (This is the same in Canada, the US, and China but not necessarily the EU). The goal is to reduce tariffs, trade barriers, and trade restrictions on all fronts.

You want to impose trade restrictions on business, or perhapse tax those that work inethically. This, to me, is obviously against the current direction of trade and economics in the west today (Yes I'm treating the government policy and economic trends as being the same, since to me there's not a whole lot of difference, the government determines economic policy - the government is economic policy).

Property is theft huh?

Not sure what that means... okay..

If you like the idea of an anarchist state, then how would people get what they needed if not by barter and trade? I'm making an assumption here since you've said before that you are an anarchist, sort of.

The assumption is fine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy

wiki is your friend.

This is the end result, this is what one would hope for in the future.

 

[vanesch]

Capitalism is not the idea of private property. Nor is it the idea of trade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Well, from your own link:

In common usage capitalism refers to an economic system in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated, and where investment and the production, distribution and prices of commodities (goods and services) are determined by the influence of market forces (in a "free market"), rather than by the state.

How do you call then the economic system of traders, fishermen and so on in city states ? The fishermen owned their boat and nets, they came to the market and sold their fish, and people decided or not to buy it and negociated a price. A pottery maker owned his tools for making pots, and sold them to others who decided to buy them or not and negociated the price.
I don't think that in Hammurabi's code, there were price fixing policies.

 

[Smurf]

How do you call then the economic system of traders, fishermen and so on in city states ? The fishermen owned their boat and nets, they came to the market and sold their fish, and people decided or not to buy it and negociated a price. A pottery maker owned his tools for making pots, and sold them to others who decided to buy them or not and negociated the price.

I don't know. What do you call it when the army and the city governors impose a tax on the fishermen? What do you call the fact that some industries, like weapon smiths, were completely controlled by the state (hammurabi?). What do you call the various periods of time when the state owned all materials and just hired people to make stuff out of it, the workers didn't own what they made, they were hired to do a job (kind of like today - notice we don't even have capitalism today, let alone 5000 years ago).

Once more Vanesch. Capitalism did not exist because someone professed ownership over a rock anymore than socialism existed because he gave that rock to a rockless person.

 

[vanesch]

(kind of like today - notice we don't even have capitalism today, let alone 5000 years ago).

Well, you should be a bit more pragmatic. The *ideal* systems are usually so absurd that they cannot even exist, so indeed, ideal capitalism does not exist, not today, not long ago. So the ideal definition of capitalism is a useless one because we're talking about a non-existent system. Also, you should then be consistent in your definitions: if capitalism doesn't exist and has never existed, you cannot blame it for any error. So it seems that when I want to argue about capitalism to exist long ago, that you take the ideal definition of a non-existant system to argue that I'm wrong, but when criticising for instance Art's comments, that you switch back to current situations which you call capitalism. I'm not talking about the ideal and non-existant system, I'm talking about the pragmatic implementation which follows grossly capitalistic lines, and which comes down to possessions of entities (individuals, groups, families, cities...) being exchanged between those entities simply by negociation (free choice to accept the deal or not) and not by force. *This* is practical capitalism, *this* is what gives rise to all what is good and what is criticised in the actual world. It is not a system that has been thought up, it is something that naturally occurs when two conditions are (more or less) satisfied: entities are entitled to possessions (those entities can be individuals, groups of individuals, or abstract entities like cities etc...) and are entitled to make free decisions concerning the possibility of exchanging some of their possessions with those of OTHER entities, the exchange occurring when both parties agree upon the exchange. When these two conditions are satisfied, you AUTOMATICALLY induce practical capitalism. Now, these conditions are never COMPLETELY satisfied, in that the right of possession is never absolute (there are always cases when something like the king or the state or whatever comes and takes some of it away), and the freedom of action is never absolute either ; but you have to be pragmatical: when these conditions are, overall, more or less met, you have practical capitalism.It is not thought up, it is a natural consequence. So capitalism is the "natural state of affairs" whenever physical violence is communized. If physical violence is not communized, you simply have the "law of the jungle" and capitalism is what remains of that "law of the jungle" when you take away physical violence.

Once more Vanesch. Capitalism did not exist because someone professed ownership over a rock anymore than socialism existed because he gave that rock to a rockless person.

Between this extreme example of minimalistic capitalism (your minimalistic example of socialism is flawed, however), and the ideal systems which do not exist and are impossible to implement, there's an entire grey zone, and if it is dark grey, you should conclude practically that it falls into the "black" class.

When does capitalism NOT exist ? In two cases: when property is not a recognized right (either because there is a powerful entity, the state, which forcefully denies you any such right, or because there is NO powerful entity at all and your right is not protected in any way) and when free decisions to exchange stuff are not present. For instance, hunter-gatherer families who do not have the habit of exchanging stuff with other hunter-gatherer families do not have capitalism, and hunter-gatherers who take their clubs to go and hit the next hunter-gatherer family to take their stuff are also not having capitalism.
From the moment that they don't use their clubs (and hence respect some "properties" of the neighbours), and from the moment that they present berries in exchange for a bit of meat and that the exchange is by mutual agreement, you have instored a capitalist system ; however, it is very limited in the age of hunters-gatherers because the exchange of stuff rrepresents only a small portion of what "capital" a hunter-gatherer uses: most of it is "acquired" by themselves and is for own (family) consumption. (the entities here are of course not the individuals, but the families). At least capitalism in the pragmatic sense I was talking about.

 

[vanesch]

I don't know. What do you call it when the army and the city governors impose a tax on the fishermen?

If they take 10% of the fish, I'd say the system is for 90% capitalistic

What do you call the fact that some industries, like weapon smiths, were completely controlled by the state (hammurabi?).

This is normal: in a capitalist system, everything to pertaining to violence (weapons, army etc...and even the taxes that finance it) are put in common.

What do you call the various periods of time when the state owned all materials and just hired people to make stuff out of it, the workers didn't own what they made, they were hired to do a job

There was maybe capitalism BETWEEN states then, no. But ok, I never said that there was never anything ELSE but (practical) capitalism. I just contered the claim that capitalism didn't exist before Adam Smith. The *ideology* of capitalism (the belief that everything goes for the best) didn't exist, that is correct. And the *ideal* capitalism of that ideology didn't exist and still doesn't exist. But practically, it did, of course.

I mean, this discussion takes on some form like saying that natural selection didn't exist before Darwin.

 

[DM]

I don't know. What do you call it when the army and the city governors impose a tax on the fishermen?

Gross domestic product.

 

[DM]

I'm talking about the pragmatic implementation which follows grossly capitalistic lines, and which comes down to possessions of entities (individuals, groups, families, cities...) being exchanged between those entities simply by negociation (free choice to accept the deal or not) and not by force.

Not forgeting the RIGHT to own the acquisition of profits in the case of individual/group businesses.

 

[vanesch]

Not forgeting the RIGHT to own the acquisition of profits in the case of individual/group businesses.

Yes, I know that that was sometimes denied (or considered un-ethical). But that simply means that there was not the free decision to exchange goods.
Imagine that I have 3 horses. If I go to city A, where there is a lot of grain, and few horses, and I exchange 2 horses against 10 bags of grain (and use the third one to pull the cart) and I go to city B where there are a lot of horses, but not much grain, and I can exchange my 10 bags of grain against 5 horses I "did" capitalism. I can now go back with my 6 = 5 + 1 horses to city A, and obtain 20 bags of grain against 4 horses, I now use 2 horses to pull my carts ; the market price in city A is 1 horse = 5 bags of grain, while the market price in city B is 1 horse = 2 bags of grain. Back in city B, I now get 9 horses for 18 bags of grain, and I used two bags of grain to feed the horses during the trip.
After a few years, I'm a rich man :-) That's exactly how trading went in ancient times.

I used part of my capital (some horses + my time and labor) and spend some of it and each exchange was one based upon mutual consent, and I made profits, but it is hard to say where the profit exactly occurred: each exchange was "fair".

 

[Smurf]

Vanesch, that big post of yours is so muddled. I'll try to make some clear responses but we need to try to structure this discussion more if it's going to make any sense. (yes I know I've done it too)

 

[Smurf]

This is normal: in a capitalist system, everything to pertaining to violence (weapons, army etc...and even the taxes that finance it) are put in common.

In the US you are permitted to own various weapons with very little difficulty. Are you saying that private ownership of this paticular piece of property is un-capitalistic?

 

[Smurf]

Gross domestic product.

Ah... good one.

 

[Smurf]

There was maybe capitalism BETWEEN states then, no. But ok, I never said that there was never anything ELSE but (practical) capitalism. I just contered the claim that capitalism didn't exist before Adam Smith. The *ideology* of capitalism (the belief that everything goes for the best) didn't exist, that is correct. And the *ideal* capitalism of that ideology didn't exist and still doesn't exist. But practically, it did, of course.

I think you are equating Capitalism with your idea of Freedom a little too closely.

(wikipedia's daily featured article is anarcho-capitalism today - you should read it, it will really clear some things up about both Anarchism and Capitalism I think. - most anarchists don't recognize anarcho-capitalism as being a flavor of anarchism) I'd like to know if you think what you're calling capitalism right now is more closely related to anarcho-capitalism.

 

[vanesch]

In the US you are permitted to own various weapons with very little difficulty. Are you saying that private ownership of this paticular piece of property is un-capitalistic?

In a way, yes. Everything pertaining to violence is mutualised in capitalism. If not, you're back to the law of the jungle. But again, it is not these small deviations which make you decide whether a society is capitalist or not. Western societies are mainly capitalist, with some socialism and some law of the jungle.

 

[vanesch]

I think you are equating Capitalism with your idea of Freedom a little too closely.

(wikipedia's daily featured article is anarcho-capitalism today - you should read it, it will really clear some things up about both Anarchism and Capitalism I think. - most anarchists don't recognize anarcho-capitalism as being a flavor of anarchism) I'd like to know if you think what you're calling capitalism right now is more closely related to anarcho-capitalism.

I read the article on wiki . It helps me getting my semantics right.
I think that anarcho-capitalism is some "ideal" form of capitalism where everything is ruled by ownership and private initiative, but so idealised that it ruins itself. Normally, in capitalism, you delegate violence to the state. But it suffers from exactly the same flaw as all other flavors of anarchism: if you have no superstructure FORCING THIS UPON PEOPLE then it won't happen that way. You will simply go back to the law of the jungle.

I mean, it is very nice to say how PEOPLE OUGHT TO BEHAVE, but if you do not force such behaviour upon them by the means of force, then they won't necessarily behave as you think, prefer or anything. I'm a believer in hedonism, in that I think that the search for pleasure and the avoidance of suffering are the only motives for the behaviour of people. If you want to instore certain behaviours, you have to do it that way: by making them enjoy pleasure when they do what you want, and/or by making them suffer when they don't do what you want. There's no other way. Contracts, agreements, laws, property and all that ONLY MAKE SENSE if they are enforced with violence. You cannot posit by axiom that people "ought not to be violent to each other" for instance. That doesn't work. They only won't be violent if they know that they will loose on the pleasure/suffering balance in doing so.
"Individual freedom" is simply the amount of decisions you are allowed to take for yourself in the frame of this seeking of optimisation on the pleasure/suffering balance. Your freedom is only total when the law of the jungle is valid. In capitalism, it is total except for two points: you're not allowed to use violence, and you're not allowed to steal (in the broad sense of breaking contracts). All other actions are free.

So OR you have a superstructure which has "the monopoly of violence" (enforces by the use of superior violence non-violent behaviour between its members = police force) - from which moment on, you can decide whatever other behaviour is to be enforced or not, and whatever economical system you want to use or not ; OR you don't have such a superstructure, and then you will have potentially violent behaviour between members, groups of members etc... dictated by their individual perception of whether or not they will gain on the pleasure/suffering balance ; and you cannot impose whatever society you want. Without ANY superstructure (= state) no other behaviour can be imposed, especially not the rule that members should NOT get together to create such a structure.
And this is the essential instability I was pointing out since the beginning in anarchism.

 

[Smurf]

What's the difference between Capitalism and what you call "law of the jungle?"

 

[vanesch]

What's the difference between Capitalism and what you call "law of the jungle?"

Physical violence. You do what I say because otherwise I beat you up and I am stronger, or have friends which are stronger than your friends. I can even kill you, I only need to find the way to do so. Your friends might then try to kill me - or not - depending on what they think is more advantageous for them. Nowhere to complain, no judges, no laws, no police. The natural way of things.

 

[Smurf]

Physical violence. You do what I say because otherwise I beat you up and I am stronger, or have friends which are stronger than your friends. I can even kill you, I only need to find the way to do so. Your friends might then try to kill me - or not - depending on what they think is more advantageous for them. Nowhere to complain, no judges, no laws, no police. The natural way of things.

How is that any different than any state on earth? I could kill you Vanesch, I just need to find a way to do it. That, and I'd need to want to in the first place.

 

[vanesch]

How is that any different than any state on earth? I could kill you Vanesch, I just need to find a way to do it.

Well, my main motivation not to kill others is that it would put me in trouble with justice. Without a state, there is no justice department, there are only those who cared about the one I'd kill, and if I esteem that not much of a problem, I can go ahead and not be disturbed.

 

[Zlex]

So, here is how 'we' of the also on average, average populace, fix this; 'we' magically warp into an informed, educated, intelligent, reasonable electorate, as oppoised to an 'average' electorate, and we insist on populating not only the top spots, but every level of government with only the best and the brightest and the most capable. We will create the raw fodder for this miraculous transformation of government by demanding more of our kids when we expensively send them off for a free education, so when they emerge, they will form not only a broad foundation to people this massive government that some believe can bandage every skinned knee imaginable under any scenario, but form that informed electorate as well.

Of course, until we do that, we get what we get; on average, some tiny fraction of a led around by the nose electorate playing their part in our silly assed Circus elections, anointing some poor bastard to ride around in the bullet-proof limo and manage a massive organization of 'on average' human beings, subject to the same distribution of corruption and incompetence and indecision and fear and ineptitude as the population at large.

Who the Hell are we kidding? When was this not ever so, and when will it not ever be?

Politics in this nation has seldom elevated itself above the absurd, and we will always pay a price for that. Indeed, even if we could agree on that non-partisan statement, our politics immediately prevent us from agreeing on the fundamental 'why.'

You see, way more than just half of us fundamentally believe that the solution just waiting around the corner is 'the' ultimate leader who will show up and ride around in that bullet proof limo and magically, maybe with a handful of his closest cronies, run the world in such a manner that we can do whatever the Hell we want to do and still never suffer from so much as a skinned knee.

In fact, sadly, the number is probably much higher than 50%, and increasingly spans both parties of power. The only difference between these two competing camps of children looking for a Maximum Daddy is whether they want a GOP Daddy or a Democratic Daddy.

Somewhere out there, lost in the wilderness of irrelevance, is some tiny fraction of folks who still see this Universe as a place that requires constant uphill strain, and the best source of power for that constant strain is always close at hand and not somebody else's job, and certainly not in the singular set of hands of whoever is riding either the local, the parish, the state or the federal version of the bullet proof limo. It doesn't need to be everybody, because everybody never happens, but if enough folks had enough of that inside them, then no matter if they found themselves staffing some bureacracy in a city, a parish, a state, or federal government, they would not be frozen by an overbearing pall of safely waiting to be told what to do by Daddy, where real people are overwhelmed by the Universe and its sometimes too much to bear local gradients. You see, by definition, if we had enough of that kind of energy and initiative, then the gov't that we say we want to primarily depend on would be able to direct its massive resources in an effective manner, and could weather greater events without being overwhelmed.

The majority will win the shaping of this debate, and we will all live or die with their decision. If the net result of this cataclysmic event is, "we must demand/rely even more on a centralized gov't to save every rainy day," and we do so without providing the fodder to feed such a miraculous bee colony plan of action, then IMO, we will experience ever more grinding of gears/failures of the Grand Plan with every succeeding generation, as unrealistic expectations fuel an ever more disgruntled electorate, waiting for someone to show up and be their Daddy, and not only ytell them what needs to be done to wrap their World in Nerf, but actually do it for them.

 

[Skyhunter]

So, here is how 'we' of the also on average, average populace, fix this; 'we' magically warp into an informed, educated, intelligent, reasonable electorate, as oppoised to an 'average' electorate, and we insist on populating not only the top spots, but every level of government with only the best and the brightest and the most capable. We will create the raw fodder for this miraculous transformation of government by demanding more of our kids when we expensively send them off for a free education, so when they emerge, they will form not only a broad foundation to people this massive government that some believe can bandage every skinned knee imaginable under any scenario, but form that informed electorate as well.

Of course, until we do that, we get what we get; on average, some tiny fraction of a led around by the nose electorate playing their part in our silly assed Circus elections, anointing some poor bastard to ride around in the bullet-proof limo and manage a massive organization of 'on average' human beings, subject to the same distribution of corruption and incompetence and indecision and fear and ineptitude as the population at large.

Who the Hell are we kidding? When was this not ever so, and when will it not ever be?

Politics in this nation has seldom elevated itself above the absurd, and we will always pay a price for that. Indeed, even if we could agree on that non-partisan statement, our politics immediately prevent us from agreeing on the fundamental 'why.'

The purpose of this thread is to offer solutions to the problems you are describing. Most on this forum already realize the dysfunctionality of our political system.

What I am looking for is ideas, not rants. Jeez, I have enough of my own I don't need yours as well.

 

[vanesch]

What I am looking for is ideas, not rants. Jeez, I have enough of my own I don't need yours as well.

The rant was well-written, wasn't it ? I enjoyed it. But it also contains a "solution". Hey, boys and girls, that's the way things are, and will always be, so why not just accept that and move on ? I am in fact a strong supporter of that stance...

 

[Zlex]

The purpose of this thread is to offer solutions to the problems you are describing. Most on this forum already realize the dysfunctionality of our political system.

What I am looking for is ideas, not rants. Jeez, I have enough of my own I don't need yours as well.

You know what couldn't be worse? Repopulating the highest levels of elected government randomly from the phone book; a draft.

 

[Smurf]

You know what couldn't be worse? Repopulating the highest levels of elected government randomly from the phone book; a draft.

I would prefer going through it alphabetically and rotating every 3 months, but its your country.

 

[Skyhunter]

You know what couldn't be worse? Repopulating the highest levels of elected government randomly from the phone book; a draft.

I suggest we at least try it.

 

[Gokul43201]

Great post Zlex !

 

[Astronuc]

I nominate Russ Watters for President of the United States!

Go get 'em Russ!

Hey there's still time for 2008!

 

[Astronuc]

Relevant to the OP - I listened to an interview with Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel this morning on the local NPR station. I found it interesting and timely. I'll certainly be reading their book.

Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That Is Destroying America (Hardcover)
by Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel

Beckel and Thomas, political analysts and columnists for USA Today, examine the problem of political polarization by asking, Why are you reading this book? The answer: Bottom line... you are ticked off at politics. Rigid partisan beliefs, they think, have become more than a product of opposing ideologies—they have created an environment for the sole purpose of retaining political power, raising money, or making more money... benefit[ing] a few at the expense of many. Using a mix of arguments and anecdotes, Beckel and Thomas (a liberal and a conservative, respectively) assert that polarization creates conscientious nonvoters and congressional roughhousing and deceit. The book's ultimate purpose is to disarm partisan warfare by encouraging voters and candidates to align themselves with principles that directly benefit the largest possible number of citizens. The lucid political discussion between a conservative and liberal is refreshing, but their proposals are too utopian to realistically be widely embraced. Their proposition that independent thinking can be more effective than an adversarial pack mentality is a step in the right direction, though. (Oct. 9)

from Publisher's Weekly

I disagree that the proposals of Thomas and Beckel are necessarily too utopian - although they are certainly idealistic. Nevertheless, this is the direction we need to move if we want a better society, which ensures more opportunity and justice for all - not just the few who have close ties to the party controlling the government.

Throughout, Thomas and Beckel explode conventional wisdom and offer surprising new conclusions:

- The Red State/Blue State divide: Myth!
- A "common ground" presidential candidate can win in 2008: Reality!
- "Polarizers" like Ann Coulter and Michael Moore are the future of political debate: Myth!
- Major-party politics faces extinction: Reality!

These guys should know. For years Beckel and Thomas contributed to the climate of polarization in Washington . . . and they admit it. "We're two guys who spent a lot of years in the polarizing business, but on opposing sides," they write. "We helped write the game plan, and we have participated in everything from getting money out of true believers to appearing on television to help spread the contentious message. In many cases, we wrote the message. We know the gig, and it's just about up."

Thomas and Beckel discussed the media's role in promoting divisiveness in the country. They make a lot of money because of it. The media promotes confrontation and that contributes to the degradation of the political process.

Well enough is enough - and for me - it's gone too far!

As soon as the interview is posted, I'll add a link.

So in 2007 and 2008, third party and independent candidates do stand a much better chance of being elected.

Be informed - be involved - and get out and vote.