Did I miss a memo? Why are we returning to feudalism, again?

[Nessus]

You have as much to learn from me as I from you. If you think you have nothing to learn from me, it's simply because you're close-minded, lazy and unwilling to entertain realistic worldviews that are outside your ideological spectrum. These are traits I do not share (relatively speaking).

And, if you feel so strongly that you have nothing to learn from me, I have nothing to learn from you. You're dense in the skull and petrified of engaging with anyone who takes a different perspective on something. Even if that something is an issue many of us can speak intelligently about, such as long-term energy production and consumption.

Once again, you refuse to go into any depth to describe anything or stick your neck out for any particular idea. Probably because you worry about looking less intelligent than you like projecting yourself to be.

This post seems somewhat contradictory in that you're saying I'm an insecure and obstructionist jerk-hole, all the while maintaining a rather bizarre idea of egalite, fraternite and liberte. Nowhere does it say I have as much to learn from you as I do from other people (or you from me for that matter, although I have become rather convinced you are incapable of "learning" anything from me).

I would argue that I am not afraid; I truly enjoy the occasional talk with Loki where his insecurities I manage to lower, I am pretty sure wiggin disagrees with me on a host of issues, and before he went absolutely crazy Kain also seemed worth-while. Hell, I am chuffed to bits Enoch posts here, and I'm not sure it is physically possible to be any more diametrically opposed to what I think politically. (Anarcho-capitalists and other fringe people, maybe?)

I'm not saying this to fellate them, or to insult you. My point is that IMO it is an empirically found fact that what you have to bring to the table is expressed both more clearly and more amusingly in political satire and criticism. This isn't some tit for that, I do apologize if using your first name offended you, but since you used Being as a negative example, you must be on some level capable of seeing that some people don't generate anything that resonates, or anything that breaks previous resonances. The only things I see you advocate and argue are both so weak and misinformed that it's unreasonable to expect me to climb that hill. It will not net me anything but wasted time, and another empirical observation is that tilting against windmills does not encourage the people whose posts I miss to begin posting again.

One last thing, and this in particular makes me so sad you did not choose to take this to PM: I know it sucks to be called dumb. I know you know it, since you're casually referring to my potential stupidity in this very post. I tried, albeit badly, to get you to back off somewhat politely. You chose to make an issue of this, which suggests to my socially not so well adjusted mind you wanted to have this conversation out in the open. I have no issue, none at all, with that. I do not need to ask anyone else what to think of myself anymore. I have been told, both point blank and through behaviour, that people whose intellect I have the highest, utmost respect for, think very highly of my mind. These people I have asked, they've answered, and for the short term that is enough. I do not need for you, or any of the other people you forced me to name in this post, to think anything of my intelligence. That I think highly of theirs they can take or leave, it doesn't really matter to me personally, it's just what I consider an empirical observation.

That I am not willing to go "in-depth" into anything with you is something that I choose because of what I have observed of you, not out of general policy. I really am sorry you brought this to this point, and I feel emotionally drained and sad that I had to say these things. But I will not apologize for things that I do not feel were my fault, or my wrong-doing. I am not responsible for how you behave.

Do as you wish. I have no apology and no regret to offer. I stand by this reasoning until its wrongness is to me demonstrated.

[Nessus]

I really don't want to derail the OP much further, but a quick point here:
Yes, the US has recently approved a few nuclear power plants. Unfortunately, they are generally only being considered in the heavily regulated electricity markets of the southeast. Even there, cost have been spiraling out of control. The Economist had a nice special report on this a short while ago, and it was pretty bleak on the fate of nuclear power in the West, almost entirely due to cost considerations. The US has a fairly significant chunk of installed nuclear power, but it's unlikely we'll ever come close to significantly increasing our capacity.

That being said, I'm not sure that a centrally managed transition is always the best way to run things, either. My biggest complaint with such systems (even when done indirectly through subsidies) is that it presupposes that the government knows which future technology is the best one to develop as an alternative to a current (buggy) one. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case; they may have a solution, but it's almost certainly not the solution. I think a much better way to deal with this problem is to change the market so that different energy prices accurately reflect the true costs - environmental, social, political - of using it. What we're dealing with here is fundamentally a question of externalities, and I have confidence that appropriately priced externalities could easily change market behavior in a good way without imposing a top-down solution.

This may lead me to a tangential take on the thread topic itself. I don't want to get mired in questions of ALEC or lobbying groups - there are issues there, no doubt, but teasing them out is not my area of expertise. But I would like to reiterate what I've said to Nessie before. I don't have some belief in a magical invisible hand of the market which will always result in the best outcome for society (in that I don't believe that economic definitions of 'efficiency' are remotely applicable to broader society). But I do think that markets are a very powerful tool to change human behavior. Accurate pricing is absolutely critical, of course, which is why I favor regulators trying to eliminate externalities as much as possible. In general, though, both scarcity and unintended side-effects of a given product should drive up prices, resulting in a market-driven search for better and overall cheaper alternatives. A whole lot of ideas will get tried out and discarded, but the best ones will become the new gold standard. That's how the world gets to be a better place.

I don't think that one needs to be a Malthusian to be concerned with the issue of scarcity - energy or otherwise - in today's world. It's clear that we will face unprecedented challenges in the next century as the global population peaks in the 9-10 billion range, and as our global per capita consumption dramatically increases through development. I don't want to be a starry-eyed optimist and assume that all problems will magically disappear with a technological panacea, or that dealing with these problems might not get messy. But I think that to assume we'd descend into the depths of genocide or a global resource war is unnecessarily pessimistic. Our world has gotten so much better for those living in it, even as our demands on food, energy, and resources has reached unprecedented peaks. I think we can muddle through, though it won't always be pretty.

When I hear criticisms of 'democracy' as being too short-sighted to adequately deal with complex problems, what I really hear is a criticism of freedom - free choice/self determination, free markets, etc. I'm not trying to say that's a bad thing (or use it as a debate tactic to paint you as anti-freedom) - lots of societies (including our own) recognize that too much freedom can sometimes be a bad thing. In fact, one might argue that anarchy or a libertarian ideal might be a better representation of freedom than modern democracies (though I'd disagree). But on the balance, I generally think that the free actions of millions of people can, in aggregate, result in an improvement over a totalitarian solution imposed from above. Yes, some of those individuals will make bad decisions. Yet people are incredibly creative, and if we give them an opportunity to solve a problem on their own (by making it their problem in the first place), they will come up with a plethora of solutions that will in aggregate be far more effective than one or two implemented by a planning committee. The role of government, then, is not to foresee every problem and fix it - because frankly that won't work for most democracies with rapid turnover of elected officials. No, the role of government is to appropriately guide the market through regulation and pricing to come up with its own solutions.

I'm sorry that my response will be terse, I truly think you brought good points to the table, but I am...Drained.

I don't think centrally run economies, planned economies or anything like that can produce as much economical well-being as free markets. This is an ill-informed and therefore useless bigoted opinion, but I mention it only to voice my somewhat lukewarm agreement with some of this.

The problem that I tried to high-light, and that which I also found from Paul's writing, is that the "other side" isn't playing fair anymore. The market becomes less and less free as the number of choices that need be made from situations of incomplete information increase. And once the other players begin reducing information availability intentionally and maliciously, I think something ought be done. This isn't to say I believe in some golden age of free markets where information was made completely available. But when the producers begin messing with legislation, I worry.

I also would like to try and explain that I am not criticizing democracy as a system (I don't know if you thought I were), I think it's a great and worthwhile system because Kekkonen has convinced me thereof. I am criticizing the breaking down of that system from both sides of the fence; the legislative and judicial bodies have lost interest in the people, and the people have lost interest in exercising their thoughts and desires over their own destinies. Once democracy breaks down through whatever mechanism, I believe totalitarianism will rise again. And we know what that will mean.

I can't bring you numbers to show how my Malthusian pessimism is more justified. At the moment, anyway. I still plan to try, at some stage. Obviously I disagree with you on the possibilities and therefore the risk assessment. If it is even slightly possible we will recreate the genocides and oppressions of centuries past, and even more worryingly risk destroying significant segments of the biosphere (or the totality), I kind of stop worrying about the minuteness of the risk and begin focusing on the extent of the supreme danger. I know that makes me a chicken little dumb dumb, to Serious People, but I also think the Serious People are very much to blame for what is transpiring. Insufficient data! Rar.

I'm not sure a plethora of solutions is possible But that is pure pessimism. And my worries and complaints were about the growing lack of freedom, not an excess of it (even though the word means different things to me than to libertarians). That this growing lack seems appealing to so many is horrifying. Even if they too are functioning out of woefully inadequate data.

Again, I apologize for how insubstantial this was. I will try better in the near future, if not in this thread then the next.

[CitizenCain]

and before he went absolutely crazy Kain also seemed worth-while.

Oh, just for shit and giggles, when would you say that was? (That I went absolutely crazy, I mean.)

That I am not willing to go "in-depth" into anything with you is something that I choose because of what I have observed of you, not out of general policy.

Well, but that's the problem, isn't it?

You don't seem to go in-depth on anything when the other poster is substantially in disagreement with you and entrenched in that position. Not that I disagree with that approach or do any differently myself these days (why bother, right?), but at the same time you're choosing to avoid substantial discussion with anyone who really disagrees with you, you're complaining about the lack of substantial discussion around here... pardon me for saying "well, duh." And for pointing out that a large part of your complaint can be summed up as "not enough of the other kids agree with me."

The problem that I tried to high-light, and that which I also found from Paul's writing, is that the "other side" isn't playing fair anymore. The market becomes less and less free as the number of choices that need be made from situations of incomplete information increase. And once the other players begin reducing information availability intentionally and maliciously, I think something ought be done. This isn't to say I believe in some golden age of free markets where information was made completely available. But when the producers begin messing with legislation, I worry.

Well, the fundamental problem with that line of thinking is that legislation is necessarily a restriction on market freedom. The markets may or may not become less free with increasing information uncertainty, but they definitely become less free when congress dumps 10,000 pages of rules on them. And of course, it's a two way street. The more the government becomes intertwined with the market, the more influence that industry is able (and motivated) to exert over government.

[GGT]

Nessie, I think you'd be surprised to learn how many people share your worry (and pessimism) about everything you mentioned, and see the potential dangers. It's seen all over the world in protests, uprisings, "Occupy" movements, wikileaks, citizen journalists using cell phone cameras and social networks. It's also seen in Ten Year wars being fought by a tiny percent of our population, with multiple deployments that end as PTSD or suicide or broken families, coming home to high unemployment. All the while legislators don't dare officially Declare War (because they'd have to vote on it), but are quite willing to cut taxes at the same time. Anything to appease the voting public, manipulate information, control their little spheres of power to the detriment of the whole nation. Then they turn around and blame the voting public for their Dumb self-interests. Then politicians use it as an ideological wedge to blame one party-or-the-other for failed policies (as if one side is better than the other ) That's how we ended up with the Tea Party, and Christian Conservatives politicking from the pulpit.

No wonder so many people have apathy for the voting process. If that's not enough, there are efforts underway to limit voter registration, and voting in general. That's just concentrating power to smaller numbers, repeating a vicious cycle, and fostering a severe disconnect between People and politicians.

"I am criticizing the breaking down of that system from both sides of the fence; the legislative and judicial bodies have lost interest in the people, and the people have lost interest in exercising their thoughts and desires over their own destinies. Once democracy breaks down through whatever mechanism, I believe totalitarianism will rise again. And we know what that will mean."

Totally agreed. I see Institutional break-down in every important area that keeps democracy working: great education and healthcare, economic opportunity and social mobility for all, a sense of national connectedNess....and trust in our authority figures and People of Power.

[Enoch the Red]

Totally agreed. I see Institutional break-down in every important area that keeps democracy working: great education and healthcare, economic opportunity and social mobility for all, a sense of national connectedNess....and trust in our authority figures and People of Power.

If healthcare is what keeps a Democracy working, then it's a wonder the Republic has lasted as long as it has.

[Dreadnaught]

The only things I see you advocate and argue are both so weak and misinformed that it's unreasonable to expect me to climb that hill.

[To Wiggin]I'm sorry that my response will be terse, I truly think you brought good points to the table, but I am...Drained.

Nessus, the person who claims to be the smartest person in the room usually is not the smartest person in the room. Your emotional problems and arrogance puts blinders on your brain.

For example, Wiggin's feelings on these issues of energy usage are very similar to my feelings on the matter. Albeit he addressed the democracy angle that I didn't want to jump into. And Wiggin made his point with more depth, because he's better at that than I am. But Wiggin and I have views on this which are more similar than dissimilar.

Yet you fail to recognize this, dismiss my post and fawn over his post. This is because your inveterate hatred of me blinds you in a lot of ways. It's also because you need to feel superior to someone in the room, even when that person (me) is saying a lot of the same things as another person in the room (Wiggin).

Stating that you think you're smart and so do your friends is just pathetic. No one here cares. And no one believes you. That you feel the need to make this into a "ur dumb, lol" conversation only solidifies the sense that you're an intellectual paper tiger who just likes to crap on things because you have emotional issues.*


* Which you've been open about, and that takes courage. But it only makes your behavior more obvious.

[Wraith]

Is anybody going to object to me starting to move the meta-discussion to the other meta-discussion thread so this thread can avoid derailment?

[CitizenCain]

You really think it'll make a difference?

Nessie's going to respond to this and that, but not the other, or respond to different posters differently, and before I can say "told ya so," we're right back to the "meta-discussion" in this thread.

(Not that I object, it just seems like you'll end up going through the horrors of putting forth effort for absolutely no pay-off.)

[GGT]

If healthcare is what keeps a Democracy working, then it's a wonder the Republic has lasted as long as it has.

But I didn't say (or even suggest) that healthcare is the thing that keeps a democracy working. What I did say is we have Institutional break-down in every area that's important to a working democracy, including (but not limited to) healthcare.

Not to derail this too much, but the US is spending ~15% of GDP on healthcare, more per capita than any other first world nation, with some 50 million uninsured, people denied coverage or bankrupted by medical costs, over-stretched public programs with a shrinking tax base, slow growth and high unemployment, with costs of care sky-rocketing. Sick and ailing people who can't get basic care end up at the ER or wait too long to use the ER (and get sicker), knowing others get top-notch A-1 treatment for everything under the sun. That's a recipe for disaster, no matter who's to "blame", because it leads to social unrest, and politicking that's just as polarizing. It becomes "us vs them" or "haves and have-nots" in so many ways without really finding solutions.

Like it or not, public perceptions affect realities, and our democratic republic shouldn't ignore when the public is fed up with business as usual.

[Enoch the Red]

But I didn't say (or even suggest) that healthcare is the thing that keeps a democracy working. What I did say is we have Institutional break-down in every area that's important to a working democracy, including (but not limited to) healthcare.

Not to derail this too much, but the US is spending ~15% of GDP on healthcare, more per capita than any other first world nation, with some 50 million uninsured, people denied coverage or bankrupted by medical costs, over-stretched public programs with a shrinking tax base, slow growth and high unemployment, with costs of care sky-rocketing. Sick and ailing people who can't get basic care end up at the ER or wait too long to use the ER (and get sicker), knowing others get top-notch A-1 treatment for everything under the sun. That's a recipe for disaster, no matter who's to "blame", because it leads to social unrest, and politicking that's just as polarizing. It becomes "us vs them" or "haves and have-nots" in so many ways without really finding solutions.

Like it or not, public perceptions affect realities, and our democratic republic shouldn't ignore when the public is fed up with business as usual.

Business as usual is government intervention in healthcare. I don't see why you think more government intervention will be the ticket out.

[Being]

Business as usual is government intervention in healthcare. I don't see why you think more government intervention will be the ticket out.

For me it is because only government intervention can evenhandedly force the entire population into a social agreement. Think FDR.

[Enoch the Red]

For me it is because only government intervention can evenhandedly force the entire population into a social agreement. Think FDR.

Oh, right. So, more like regulating the amount of wheat a farmer can grow on his or her own land, (especially if they are growing the wheat for the great capitalistic evil of personal consumption!) in order to make all wheat more expensive, all the while waiting patiently for the fees we charge violators, and the very visible, (yet gentle and caring) hand of government guide us and get us out of our recession.

God, let the good FDR times roll...

[coinich]

For me it is because only government intervention can evenhandedly force the entire population into a social agreement. Think FDR.

I thought agreements usually were conducted without forced coercion. My mistake.

[Nessus]

Is anybody going to object to me starting to move the meta-discussion to the other meta-discussion thread so this thread can avoid derailment?

It doesn't look like that derailment is going to go anywhere worthwhile, but if you feel like trying to clean up this thread that's fine by me.

[Loki]

I thought agreements usually were conducted without forced coercion. My mistake.

He also ignores the fact that the "government" is not a sentient entity that has its own interests and morality. It's composed of individuals who have their own interests and depend on various constituencies. To expect these individuals to come together and create policy "for the common good" is deluded, not only because it's not in most of those individuals' self-interest, but because there's no objective method for deciding what is in the common good.

[Being]

He also ignores the fact that the "government" is not a sentient entity that has its own interests and morality. It's composed of individuals who have their own interests and depend on various constituencies. To expect these individuals to come together and create policy "for the common good" is deluded, not only because it's not in most of those individuals' self-interest, but because there's no objective method for deciding what is in the common good.

Funny how you put that. Did you mean to say that "government" today is not as sensative to the needs of the nation as "government" was 80 years ago? It worked in FDR's time and I believe you support the concept of social security.

[wiggin]

The problem that I tried to high-light, and that which I also found from Paul's writing, is that the "other side" isn't playing fair anymore. The market becomes less and less free as the number of choices that need be made from situations of incomplete information increase. And once the other players begin reducing information availability intentionally and maliciously, I think something ought be done. This isn't to say I believe in some golden age of free markets where information was made completely available. But when the producers begin messing with legislation, I worry.

I also would like to try and explain that I am not criticizing democracy as a system (I don't know if you thought I were), I think it's a great and worthwhile system because Kekkonen has convinced me thereof. I am criticizing the breaking down of that system from both sides of the fence; the legislative and judicial bodies have lost interest in the people, and the people have lost interest in exercising their thoughts and desires over their own destinies. Once democracy breaks down through whatever mechanism, I believe totalitarianism will rise again. And we know what that will mean.

On the one hand, I see where you're going. There are plenty of perversions of the democratic process, and in general corruption is a vicious cancer for any free society. But I'm just not sure that much of the current crop of complaints has to do with actual corruption; it's something far more insubstantial. I don't doubt it still has the potential to be quite harmful, but I'm unconvinced it's as disastrous as we might presuppose.

For example: I find it very frustrating when large segments of our elected officials - albeit in line with the general populace - are clearly ignorant or outright wrong about fairly fundamental scientific principles. Evolution is a big example in the US but hardly the only one. I think it's damaging to our educational system and our societal advancement, and it pains me to see when such clearly wrong-headed rhetoric gets in the way. Yet at the same time, when I hear people like Dawkins speak, I'm frustrated with his obstinate nature as well. I listened to a TED talk of his where he tried to claim (on the basis of very flimsy evidence) that the people best suited to run the country (i.e. the smartest people) were overwhelmingly atheists/nontheists and as such were effectively ineligible for election to public office in the US, unless they were willing to lie. His methodology was seriously flawed, though, notably in assuming that academics in natural sciences are best suited to run the country.

What I'm trying to get at is even if democratically elected leaders may sometimes drive me crazy, there is a feedback mechanism in place, and many of them are actually decent at governance. Serious distortions of information that result in adverse events will get corrected in time, though it's certainly possible that some amount of damage will already have been done. And at the end of the day, our legislature and judiciary do care about people at the end of the day. Even the members of Congress who espouse a worldview with which I am completely opposed probably care very deeply for their constituents. When I look at people who disagree with me, I don't see them as the stooge of powerful lobbies, but as people who have been convinced that their course of action is the best for their voters. I don't doubt there's plenty of pork-barrel politicking, back-room compromises, etc. involved, but at the end of the day I do think most of our government thinks it's doing the right thing.

Our job is not to suggest the system is broken, but to advocate for our positions both with the general electorate and our elected officials. On issues about which I feel strongly, I will often send a letter to my representatives and discuss it with my peers. Hell, I myself have revisited some of my positions when someone I respect has voiced a surprising opinion on an issue. I'm sure most of this is irrelevant and at most gets put into some simple polling data, but that's not the point. The aggregate of everyone's discussions and arguments and donations and advocacy is what we call democracy.

We live in a world of unprecedented information density and access, where every citizen in the developed world has instant access to nearly everything necessary to make a decent decision. Yes, things are very politicized, but there are always people ready and willing to call bullshit on a claim, and it happens frequently. I don't deny that some people live in echo chambers, but overall we have a far richer and complex public discourse than ever before. I am optimistic that we can overcome any hiccups in the process to arrive at a reasonably satisfactory conclusion.

I can't bring you numbers to show how my Malthusian pessimism is more justified. At the moment, anyway. I still plan to try, at some stage. Obviously I disagree with you on the possibilities and therefore the risk assessment. If it is even slightly possible we will recreate the genocides and oppressions of centuries past, and even more worryingly risk destroying significant segments of the biosphere (or the totality), I kind of stop worrying about the minuteness of the risk and begin focusing on the extent of the supreme danger. I know that makes me a chicken little dumb dumb, to Serious People, but I also think the Serious People are very much to blame for what is transpiring. Insufficient data! Rar.

This is really an aside, but I just want to acknowledge that I'm not one of those people who feel that genocide or world war are impossible in our bright new era. My family's history is far too depressing on that subject for me to believe that the darkness at the heart of human society has been expunged. Much as I would like to believe that these evils are the actions of a few, Christopher Browning has unfortunately convinced me that is wrong. I just feel that our current path doesn't make it likely as long as there are right minded, reasonable people who stand up for what is right. The depths to which we've sunk in this century are truly horrifying, from Turkey to Auschwitz to Stalin to Mao to Pol Pot to Rwanda... the list goes on and on. Yet the world does get better, and I think the darkness of this century has been a warning for us. We have established unprecedented institutions that have helped to reduce the number and severity of armed conflicts around the globe, and we're getting better at providing basic food and medical care to those who would die from other causes. It's a long way from a finished project, but I think that the underlying cosmopolitanism of our current society is an encouraging trend.



...I think I may have lost my chain of thought somewhere in there. I'm sorry it's a bit muddled. Perhaps I'll have a go at it again later.

[GGT]

Business as usual is government intervention in healthcare. I don't see why you think more government intervention will be the ticket out.

I suppose that starts with how we define private monopolies, and the role government plays? Even Freeee Market enterprise needs rules and rule-makers to function well. Didn't the latest financial crisis prove the flaws in laissez-faire, libertarian, "self-regulation" and "self-interest" theories? Even the guru of libertarian free market theories found the flaws (Greenspan). He was shocked, shocked I tell you!

I heard a great sports analogy the other day: playing Football using Rugby rules. Some think of Football as Soccer, so now we've got three sports using one set of Rules (and referees). That doesn't work. Free Enterprise and Free Markets need rules/regulations to work, too. Otherwise it's just a chaotic Free-For-All.

One problem we face is how politicians/legislators now have a lobbyist/interest group fused to their hip. They're trying to referee Football, while the playing field is full of Rugby players. Add in the team owners, franchise reps, player unions, concession contracts, public-use roadways and utilities, marketing firms, product endorsements, televised rights and black-outs....and the fans become low on the totem pole, even though fans are the main driver of everything.

If you get my gist.

[Enoch the Red]

I suppose that starts with how we define private monopolies, and the role government plays? Even Freeee Market enterprise needs rules and rule-makers to function well. Didn't the latest financial crisis prove the flaws in laissez-faire, libertarian, "self-regulation" and "self-interest" theories? Even the guru of libertarian free market theories found the flaws (Greenspan). He was shocked, shocked I tell you!

...

You are familiar with what laissez-faire means, aren't you? I'm beginning to get the distinct impression that you are not. To claim that the choices and environment that led to the financial crisis were completely free from government intervention, regulation, and taxation is beyond my comprehension. Were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac children of the free market or government intervention? Do you think banks would have have been so cavalier with credit if there wasn't an implicit guarantee from government that they were too big to fail? What is a HUD loan, GGT, and what do you think that kind of loan does to a market? What role do you think the Federal Reserve played in the financial crisis? I will be the first to admit that crony capitalism is a problem, arguably the problem, but it's a problem that will increase proportionally to the amount of influence and power that can be traded, brokered, and bartered from the government. Increasing the role government plays will not fix the problem, it will create a whole host of new ones. This is what I've been trying to get you to see, and what you've even admitted, yet you still don't recognize this very fundamental truth. The more power is centralized, the greater the role that government plays in our life, the greater reward there is in corrupting and subverting that influence.

You don't have crony capitalism, you can not have crony capitalism, without first having a corruptible government with the necessary influence. Instead of banking on, and hoping for a government free from corruption, let's do what history tells us and realize that any institution made by man will be forever susceptible to not only his virtues, but his vices as well.

I know you like to post as an outsider, but you the irony is that you are not, GGT. It isn't that you object to the status quo, you simply want to tweak it, to modify it until it suits you, and then send it on its merry way. The status quo has been tried, it has been tested, and it has failed. Let's try something new.

Finally, to hear you say that you think the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve is somehow the plenary authority on what constitutes libertarian free-market thought is showing a rather telling lack of understanding of the varieties and complexities of libertarian thought.

[GGT]

Ghost, we probably agree on more things than you care to admit. We can agree that "government intervention" has often led to more problems than solutions. We can agree that "gummint intervention" can BE the problem. We can agree that something "new" should be tried, since business-as-usual is nothing more than bubbles and busts, reactionary policies, and politicians making empty promises.

Where we disagree boils down to this: you've become so distrustful of "government" that you point to every failed policy as a failure of government itself. You'd prefer to whittle it down to an empty shell. I've become so distrustful of "politicians" that every failed policy looks like a failure of people IN the government, but not government itself.

You don't need to pepper your post with suggestions that I just don't understand certain concepts, thank you very much. I'm keenly aware of the conflicts and hypocrisies in our political parties, elected legislators, and their policies. Voters exhibit the same contradictory behavior---Tea Party senior citizens protesting against taxes, but hands off their SS and Medicare benefits. It's become a dog and pony show, a circus, a spectator sport, and a joke. Those who whine about SSSocialism or central planning also use SS/Medicare and central banking to their political advantage. It's a bipartisan cluster fuck.

We can do better than that, without resorting to a government in absentia, or a Wild West mentality. Government can serve its necessary purpose without being seen as some Evil Entity.

[Enoch the Red]

You don't need to pepper your post with suggestions that I just don't understand certain concepts, thank you very much. I'm keenly aware of the conflicts and hypocrisies in our political parties, elected legislators, and their policies. Voters exhibit the same contradictory behavior---Tea Party senior citizens protesting against taxes, but hands off their SS and Medicare benefits. It's become a dog and pony show, a circus, a spectator sport, and a joke. Those who whine about SSSocialism or central planning also use SS/Medicare and central banking to their political advantage. It's a bipartisan cluster fuck.

You clearly don't understand certain fundamentals if you continue to contend that the economic and political realities that led up to the Great Recession resembled or approached those put forth by proponents of a laissez-faire, libertarian free market.

It's also hard to take your animadvert of our "bipartisan cluster fuck" seriously when you have consistently failed to talk about any group other than the Teaparty, Libertarians, or Republicans. I simply don't believe you when you try to paint yourself as some objective, magnanimous third party, weighing each idea on its own merits. Nobody here would think less of you if you just came out and admitted being a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. In fact, speaking personally, I'd respect your candor.

[GGT]

You clearly don't understand certain fundamentals if you continue to contend that the economic and political realities that led up to the Great Recession resembled or approached those put forth by proponents of a laissez-faire, libertarian free market.

My contention is that neither government nor regulations are "bad" things in and of themselves. They only become "bad" or ineffectual by the people who manipulate or abuse them, usually for their own purposes.

[It's also hard to take your animadvert of our "bipartisan cluster fuck" seriously when you have consistently failed to talk about any group other than the Teaparty, Libertarians, or Republicans. I simply don't believe you when you try to paint yourself as some objective, magnanimous third party, weighing each idea on its own merits. Nobody here would think less of you if you just came out and admitted being a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. In fact, speaking personally, I'd respect your candor.

All humans have some subjective components as part of their ideology. That includes you, and how you perceive other people and the world. Sorry, I can't do much about what you believe me to be, or how you interpret my posts. When I see the obvious fractures within the Republican party, candidates trying to go far right to appeal certain groups (Tea Party, Evangelical Christians, Catholics, Religious Conservatives, Grover Norquist "promise-keepers") in attempts to appeal to their base--or define their base--I'll post about those fractures. They're clearly more extreme changes than anything happening in the Democratic party.

I'm surprised that you're surprised, when pretty much all moderate Republicans are saying the same thing. Barbara Bush said the Republicans have become a weird and unrecognizable party. Poppy Bush was an Ambassador and early advocate for Planned Parenthood and federal funding for family planning and sex-ed. Even Ronald Reagan wouldn't be considered part of the "base" by today's definitions (though he's cited as the great savior of conservative politics).

If that makes me a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat in your mind, then bust a gut! But that would mean you're not a real libertarian. Libertarians don't label individuals or place people into groups by stereo-type.

[Enoch the Red]

My contention is that neither government nor regulations are "bad" things in and of themselves. They only become "bad" or ineffectual by the people who manipulate or abuse them, usually for their own purposes.

No, GGT. Your contention is that free markets and laissez-faire economics are what led to the global economic crisis. In case you've forgotten:

Didn't the latest financial crisis prove the flaws in laissez-faire, libertarian, "self-regulation" and "self-interest" theories?

That's the quote that I took issue with, and it is a flawed premise that I've seen you put forth time and time again.

All humans have some subjective components as part of their ideology. That includes you, and how you perceive other people and the world. Sorry, I can't do much about what you believe me to be, or how you interpret my posts. When I see the obvious fractures within the Republican party, candidates trying to go far right to appeal certain groups (Tea Party, Evangelical Christians, Catholics, Religious Conservatives, Grover Norquist "promise-keepers") in attempts to appeal to their base--or define their base--I'll post about those fractures. They're clearly more extreme changes than anything happening in the Democratic party.

Of course you don't think of yourself as a Democrat. You are a strong, independent minded woman who is a straight shooter and a political rogue. You can't be classified by party or ideology, because nobody really gets you, and you reject any and all attempts to be labeled. Believe me, I understand that allure, and I don't blame you for it. I also think it's mostly a smoke screen. On almost every issue we've discussed, you've fallen well to the left of most independents and moderates, and on major issues more often than not have an opinion that's in lockstep with, or that's not all that different from the most liberal Democratic rank and file.

Again, there's nothing wrong with that. Very few people define themselves by party affiliation, and for good reason. Party affiliation is an imperfect beast. No party can perfectly advocate or reflect every individuals personal convictions, but if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I'm surprised that you're surprised, when pretty much all moderate Republicans are saying the same thing. Barbara Bush said the Republicans have become a weird and unrecognizable party. Poppy Bush was an Ambassador and early advocate for Planned Parenthood and federal funding for family planning and sex-ed. Even Ronald Reagan wouldn't be considered part of the "base" by today's definitions (though he's cited as the great savior of conservative politics).

I'm not a Republican, and I don't particularly care what moderate Republicans think of their party. What Republicans do or don't think has little to do with the positions you have consistently held and advocated on here.

If that makes me a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat in your mind, then bust a gut! But that would mean you're not a real libertarian. Libertarians don't label individuals or place people into groups by stereo-type.

Yeah, this is not doing anything to help your case that you have a clear understanding of the principles of libertarianism, or what makes a Scotsman true.

[coinich]

Funny how you put that. Did you mean to say that "government" today is not as sensative to the needs of the nation as "government" was 80 years ago? It worked in FDR's time and I believe you support the concept of social security.

I didn't realize it was any more effective then than it is now. In fact, I highly doubt it was at all, especially considering the whole court packing fiasco and the circumstances behind it. That era may have seen much more "high profile" legislation passed, but I doubt that makes it more effective at all than the government of today. In fact, he was dealing with a clear and open Congress as the major head of the party, no?

[CitizenCain]

I didn't realize it was any more effective then than it is now. In fact, I highly doubt it was at all, especially considering the whole court packing fiasco and the circumstances behind it. That era may have seen much more "high profile" legislation passed, but I doubt that makes it more effective at all than the government of today. In fact, he was dealing with a clear and open Congress as the major head of the party, no?

Not to mention that it wasn't FDR's socialism that brought the USA out of the Great Depression, but WWII.

[Aimless]

I thought WWII just added the finishing touches and that things had already begun to look up for other reasons

[Nessus]

...I think I may have lost my chain of thought somewhere in there. I'm sorry it's a bit muddled. Perhaps I'll have a go at it again later.

Since you feel this way, I'll just throw a few comments here and there and see if that helps anything. It's possible the issue is too large to tackle as a whole. (It's likely, even)

On the one hand, I see where you're going. There are plenty of perversions of the democratic process, and in general corruption is a vicious cancer for any free society. But I'm just not sure that much of the current crop of complaints has to do with actual corruption; it's something far more insubstantial. I don't doubt it still has the potential to be quite harmful, but I'm unconvinced it's as disastrous as we might presuppose.

Okay; how can we test this hypothesis? I mean, how can we tell? If Congress has a 10 % approval rating, does that tell us anything at all? I don't propose to possess very good information coverage, and I'd be chuffed to bits to fix that.

For example: I find it very frustrating when large segments of our elected officials - albeit in line with the general populace - are clearly ignorant or outright wrong about fairly fundamental scientific principles. Evolution is a big example in the US but hardly the only one. I think it's damaging to our educational system and our societal advancement, and it pains me to see when such clearly wrong-headed rhetoric gets in the way. Yet at the same time, when I hear people like Dawkins speak, I'm frustrated with his obstinate nature as well. I listened to a TED talk of his where he tried to claim (on the basis of very flimsy evidence) that the people best suited to run the country (i.e. the smartest people) were overwhelmingly atheists/nontheists and as such were effectively ineligible for election to public office in the US, unless they were willing to lie. His methodology was seriously flawed, though, notably in assuming that academics in natural sciences are best suited to run the country.

I'm not very fond of the types who think Plato's ur-fascism was a good idea; you work with other scientists, can't you see how disastrously wrong this line of thinking is?

The thing with the disrespect and -trust towards academia is, I would assume it can course-correct in roughly two different ways. If totalitarianism proceeds its march forward, academia will be subverted into a tool for that totalitarian system (this I pose only as an empirical observation, not some grand hypothesis) from within and without. Otherwise, the economical draw-backs to an increasingly uneducated and uninformed population will enable progressives to argue that research and education need a larger slice of society's pie. (And another observation is that if the economical situation becomes bad enough, totalitarian ideals have a better shot at a populist grab for power instead of "crypto-fascism", but never mind, we lack data.)

What I'm trying to get at is even if democratically elected leaders may sometimes drive me crazy, there is a feedback mechanism in place, and many of them are actually decent at governance. Serious distortions of information that result in adverse events will get corrected in time, though it's certainly possible that some amount of damage will already have been done. And at the end of the day, our legislature and judiciary do care about people at the end of the day. Even the members of Congress who espouse a worldview with which I am completely opposed probably care very deeply for their constituents. When I look at people who disagree with me, I don't see them as the stooge of powerful lobbies, but as people who have been convinced that their course of action is the best for their voters. I don't doubt there's plenty of pork-barrel politicking, back-room compromises, etc. involved, but at the end of the day I do think most of our government thinks it's doing the right thing.

I apologize in advance, but so did Joseph Goebbels. I don't know how much hyperbole there is in the claims of War on Women and so forth, but if as a legislator you persist in pursuing positions that serve to place more abject human misery into the field, I'm not sure your good intentions are worth that price.

Of course as public figures, one has to put forth a lot of propaganda, but the sheer amount of hateful stuff that's perfectly acceptable if not even popular is just staggering. The whole idea that people need to be governed through force and punishment just screams moral and practical endorsement of totalitarianism. The fact that the punishments meted out are both lives ruined through malnutrition, meth violence and loss of health, and those things within society-funded institutions isn't that big of a difference at the end of the day, is it? It seems hard to comprehend how a nation that started out as a direct refutation for the divine right of kings has the culture it has these days.

Our job is not to suggest the system is broken, but to advocate for our positions both with the general electorate and our elected officials. On issues about which I feel strongly, I will often send a letter to my representatives and discuss it with my peers. Hell, I myself have revisited some of my positions when someone I respect has voiced a surprising opinion on an issue. I'm sure most of this is irrelevant and at most gets put into some simple polling data, but that's not the point. The aggregate of everyone's discussions and arguments and donations and advocacy is what we call democracy.

We live in a world of unprecedented information density and access, where every citizen in the developed world has instant access to nearly everything necessary to make a decent decision. Yes, things are very politicized, but there are always people ready and willing to call bullshit on a claim, and it happens frequently. I don't deny that some people live in echo chambers, but overall we have a far richer and complex public discourse than ever before. I am optimistic that we can overcome any hiccups in the process to arrive at a reasonably satisfactory conclusion.

Where I (tried to) began this conversation was to state that this democracy is failing. I know it's easier than ever to have these discussions (we're having one right now! How cool is that?), but I'm not really convinced of their impact on our governance.

I don't remember which Lem book it is, probably HMV, where the protagonist ponders about information density. When there were only 1,000 new books out each year, it was perfectly feasible to find the sub-set of the valuable ones. Now that there are millions of books appearing at an increasing pace (the book takes place pre-Internet), it becomes impossible to sieve through all of it. This problem is far worse today.

Isn't that the raison dêtre for Citizens United? For all our discussions, how much closer to the truth can we get? How much of these discourses are informed and influenced by biased parties serving their self-interests? Of course society is by definition attempting to find common ground between different interest parties, but perhaps you can appreciate the difference in sheer volume if nothing else. If it is possible to out-right purchase legislation, the only difference between that system iterating towards a tyranny of the minority and the ones where this was achieved through beatings and torture is the level of physical violence.

US politics seems to have bi-polarized to an almost complete stand-still. To me, it doesn't look like a completely ridiculous suggestion that at least one of the main motivations of the GOP has been to remove Obama at all prices. Of course it's possible that they're just misinformed by an echo chamber and acting out of good intentions when they're attempting to spiral the global economy into a death spin, again, we lack data. (Of lesser interest to you, local politics stagnated for a long time between three major parties playing against each other rather than for the people; the populist response of the people raised a small uproar abroad as we know. I'm not exactly optimistic about this situation, either.)

This is really an aside, but I just want to acknowledge that I'm not one of those people who feel that genocide or world war are impossible in our bright new era. My family's history is far too depressing on that subject for me to believe that the darkness at the heart of human society has been expunged. Much as I would like to believe that these evils are the actions of a few, Christopher Browning has unfortunately convinced me that is wrong. I just feel that our current path doesn't make it likely as long as there are right minded, reasonable people who stand up for what is right. The depths to which we've sunk in this century are truly horrifying, from Turkey to Auschwitz to Stalin to Mao to Pol Pot to Rwanda... the list goes on and on. Yet the world does get better, and I think the darkness of this century has been a warning for us. We have established unprecedented institutions that have helped to reduce the number and severity of armed conflicts around the globe, and we're getting better at providing basic food and medical care to those who would die from other causes. It's a long way from a finished project, but I think that the underlying cosmopolitanism of our current society is an encouraging trend.

At this moment in time, I really don't know what I think about the goodness in the hearts of men and how much that can help. My primary concerns are the physical realities on the ground; it looks like no one has a clue about, say, the global energy budget or the nutritional budget. We just stumble along blindly, looking at objectives 3 or 6 months down the line for the most part. And hoping for the best. I'm really not the kind of person that can just hope for the best. Of course, that is just my personal pathology and not very interesting to the conversation of the global situation or the possible degeneration of democracy. But still, some data would be nice, wouldn't it? No matter how hard you wish upon a star out of good intentions, it won't do much if you're wishing for something physically impossible.

[GGT]

No, GGT. Your contention is that free markets and laissez-faire economics are what led to the global economic crisis. In case you've forgotten:

That's the quote that I took issue with, and it is a flawed premise that I've seen you put forth time and time again.

"Flaws" in Freee Markets (a misnomer to begin with) with a laissez-faire attitude toward Regulation did lead to the crises, yes.

That's the 'premise' and analysis of many (including Greenspan's hindsight). In real-time, financial regulation reform of the 80's and 90's (Financial Modernization Act, Glass-Steagall, Gramm-Bliley, etc.) was heavily debated by legislators. Critics and red flag warnings were largely ignored, fast-forward to 2007 and the global financial meltdown...which led to the Great Recession.

Again, Regulations aren't bad in and of themselves, only how they're applied or used. "Less" regulation doesn't necessarily mean better, more appropriate or targeted regulation. And it shouldn't mean NO regulatory oversight. OTC derivatives and swaps markets still aren't monitored by anyone other than the "self-interested" participants who are "self-regulating"....a $700 Trillion global market.

It's become a common political talking point, to spin it toward teh evilz of gummint and/or regulation, using Reagan's quote that gov't IS the problem. I get it. The reality is more nuanced and pragmatic than bumper-sticker slogans, though. We'd do better to find the right types of rules and the best kinds of regulations, instead of condemning them wholesale. Turning it into a right v left, (R) or (D), all-or-none thing doesn't help.

[CitizenCain]

I thought WWII just added the finishing touches and that things had already begun to look up for other reasons

Depends on which country you're talking about, but the end of the Great Depression only came when money for the WWII military build up (or the actual war itself) started flowing in.

"Flaws" in Freee Markets (a misnomer to begin with) with a laissez-faire attitude toward Regulation did lead to the crises, yes.

Wow.

It's like you don't know what these words actually mean. Really, invest in a dictionary.

[Enoch the Red]

"Flaws" in Freee Markets (a misnomer to begin with) with a laissez-faire attitude toward Regulation did lead to the crises, yes.

That's the 'premise' and analysis of many (including Greenspan's hindsight). In real-time, financial regulation reform of the 80's and 90's (Financial Modernization Act, Glass-Steagall, Gramm-Bliley, etc.) was heavily debated by legislators. Critics and red flag warnings were largely ignored, fast-forward to 2007 and the global financial meltdown...which led to the Great Recession.

Again, Regulations aren't bad in and of themselves, only how they're applied or used. "Less" regulation doesn't necessarily mean better, more appropriate or targeted regulation. And it shouldn't mean NO regulatory oversight. OTC derivatives and swaps markets still aren't monitored by anyone other than the "self-interested" participants who are "self-regulating"....a $700 Trillion global market.

It's become a common political talking point, to spin it toward teh evilz of gummint and/or regulation, using Reagan's quote that gov't IS the problem. I get it. The reality is more nuanced and pragmatic than bumper-sticker slogans, though. We'd do better to find the right types of rules and the best kinds of regulations, instead of condemning them wholesale. Turning it into a right v left, (R) or (D), all-or-none thing doesn't help.

I feel like we've been down this road already...

...

You are familiar with what laissez-faire means, aren't you? I'm beginning to get the distinct impression that you are not. To claim that the choices and environment that led to the financial crisis were completely free from government intervention, regulation, and taxation is beyond my comprehension. Were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac children of the free market or government intervention? Do you think banks would have have been so cavalier with credit if there wasn't an implicit guarantee from government that they were too big to fail? What is a HUD loan, GGT, and what do you think that kind of loan does to a market? What role do you think the Federal Reserve played in the financial crisis? I will be the first to admit that crony capitalism is a problem, arguably the problem, but it's a problem that will increase proportionally to the amount of influence and power that can be traded, brokered, and bartered from the government. Increasing the role government plays will not fix the problem, it will create a whole host of new ones. This is what I've been trying to get you to see, and what you've even admitted, yet you still don't recognize this very fundamental truth. The more power is centralized, the greater the role that government plays in our life, the greater reward there is in corrupting and subverting that influence.

You don't have crony capitalism, you can not have crony capitalism, without first having a corruptible government with the necessary influence. Instead of banking on, and hoping for a government free from corruption, let's do what history tells us and realize that any institution made by man will be forever susceptible to not only his virtues, but his vices as well.

I know you like to post as an outsider, but you the irony is that you are not, GGT. It isn't that you object to the status quo, you simply want to tweak it, to modify it until it suits you, and then send it on its merry way. The status quo has been tried, it has been tested, and it has failed. Let's try something new.

Finally, to hear you say that you think the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve is somehow the plenary authority on what constitutes libertarian free-market thought is showing a rather telling lack of understanding of the varieties and complexities of libertarian thought.