Dániel Boros
-
Posts
256 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Dániel Boros
-
-
Since it is election season I thought it's time to share with you one of my ideas on democracy.
Every 4 years new people are elected to the federal government as representatives. Now to me that 4 years sounds a bit much. If I elect someone and that someone doesn't do what he tolled me he would do I can't get back my vote. I have to wait four years to take away my vote from the representative who did not represent me. On the market If I don't like a service I can stop using it. If I don't think my stock will go up I can sell it. If I don't think I will get a job in the town I live I can move. Politicians often only care about their last year even though they were elected for four.
So how about this? What if there were no elections at all, and instead you would have a token that you could always get back and give to someone else. If some politician had the most tokens of a district he would be the one that could stay in Washington. If someone looses so many tokens that someone else actually has more than the guy in Washington would be replaced by the new guy. I would suggest a small fee you would need to pay when you give your token to someone else, but other than that you could select anyone at any time.
With our modern technology a system like that which was impossible back in the 18 hundreds could be easily created.
I'm sure someone will point out that kicking out a politician while he is working could lead to some unintended consequences, but don't forget, this is how markets work.
that will be all
peace
-
I think that is the cause of the kind of group mentality I spoke of but not necessarily the reason why a third party never gets in. Jefferson was the first to form a "party" so it is indeed a very old tradition, but I don't think that the average voter is just as much aware of the facts as you are. The notion that other parties can't ever win has been embedded into the psyche of most Americans.
Actually Ron Paul helps to illustrate my point. Voters think of him as a fringe candidate with horrible foreign policy and that's a clear losing strategy at a time when his pacifism/isolationism would jeopardize the country's security.Fact is he is not a pacifist nor is he a isolationist, but I do agree the media sold that idea well to the public.
Jeopardize the country's security? Which country are you referring to if I may ask? The one with more guns than anyone else, or are we talking about South Korea, Japan or maybe Germany perhaps?
Also as far as I can tell most Americans are already tired of the wars, but please correct me if I am wrong.
When Obama said last election "I will bring back the troops, you can take that to the bank" was he going for the fringe vote?
-
There are institutional reasons for this as well.
Yes indeed. Plus money as well.
I don't think the general voter preference for the two parties has anything to do with "vote the lesser of two evils." The 3rd parties we have are not considered superior but unlikely to win. They are, in fact, regarded as fringe parties with a loopy ideas and bad candidates. You cannot project onto most voters an attitude they don't claim to possess.
If we are talking about general voters. Yes certainly. I'm not sure if the green party could be described as fringe though.
I would also note that Ron Paul got where he is now by always voting on principle. It seems that particular principle is very different from the one TOS is advocating for. While he did not become the nominee he did achive a lot in terms of shifting the questions to the points that are the most important. The FED, the debt, spending, govenrment intervention etc... Why do you think Paul Ryan became the VP nominee? Romney wants to get the liberty voters and activists with someone who advocates free markets but won't vote on principle. So voting on a very straightforward principle is despite all odds a viably political strategy.
-
A poker player who only considers his own hand and not how he can be beaten by cards in other players' hands is a sure loser. An election is the kind of zero-sum game addressed by game theory, a specialty in mathematics, so this can be proven deductively as well as by experience.
It is because of the "vote the lesser of two evils" mentality that the U.S. has a two party system. If everyone follows the herd there will be no third party candidates. Of course there will be none, but if a substantial number of people refuse to vote things may change one day.
So Mr. Poker since you have been using this strategy how much did you win? The strategy isn't working. In Atlas Shrugged the capitalists supported big government by simply doing what they do best. Making stuff, yet the people who would rather go to Galt's Atlantis seem to be always wrong.
-
If Ayn Rand was running third party TOS would still vote either democrat or republican.
It is interesting that a non aggressive foreign policy is deemed insane, but supporting dictators with money in the Middle East is totally okay.
-
Sorry. I just couldn't stop myself saying it like that, since we were discussing libertarians being anti war.
-
I don't think it's prejudice. The fact that Robert is a new poster here doesn't mean that he has no knowledge of certain moderators' behavior. Robert is a regular reader and contributor at OL, so it's quite likely that he's read some of my detailed accounts, including a lot of evidence, of moderators' actions here.
J
So it was a preemptive strike in the form of a threat based on second hand accounts.
I still think it was inappropriate.
-
Now now, someone with one post should not be so prejudiced.
I doubt it's going to be deleted. I have written a lot of things that were much worse than this
-
-
If he's not an employee than there's no reason to fire him, but that doesn't mean he should not be criticized.
-
thanks
it was very good
-
Nicky you are so negative
I can't believe I just read this whole thread.
Daniel, without a proper understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy you can warp capitalism into a bunch of bad directions. Libertarians, as a movement, due to their different fundemental beliefs can not achieve capitalism because they do not know what it is.
You seem to think that Libertarians share a singular vision for a capitalist world that is somewhat compatable with Objectivism's vision. if most libertarians followed the works of Mises,. However I think there are some major issue libertarians differ from Objectivists and from one another in very important ways.
I wouldn't say they share a singular vision. I would say most of them share the right vision, which is why they nominate people like Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, but that is only my opinion. Btw. Gary Johnson is Polling at 10%.
I agree that objectivists and libertarians differ from one another in very important ways. I would also say that man and woman differ from each other in very important ways, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can't work together.
Total war is the first major issue. One of the most startling conclusions of Ayn Rand's philosophy is that war should be waged for victory, without much other consideraton. Most libertarians do not agree with this at all.
"A: The most important promise we keep is the oath to obey the Constitution. We just shouldnt be going to all these wars. We shouldnt have so many injured and in our hospitals because we shouldnt go to war unless its declared. If its declared, we should go win it and get it over with. We went in under false pretense. There were no weapons of mass destruction There are still people who believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, yet 15 of the people were from Saudi Arabia. We need to live up to our principles so there are less injured veterans, but when they come home we better jolly well take care of them, and were not doing a very good job right now, because all the moneys going overseas. Were broke. We got to do something about it. And we cant perpetuate a welfare state AND police an empire without going bankrupt." Ron PaulTo me that doesn't seem so bad, but who knows maybe he is the exception.
Property rights and contracts are not understood by Libertarians. I remember a debate on a forum (Mises.org I think) where people were considering the idea of indentured servitude (voluntary slavery is what they called it). Some were for it and others were against it. I was suprised. Objectivism has a very clear view of this issue but they seemed to have no idea how to think when the NAP stopped informing their world view.
Intellectual Property, immigration,,criminal punishment, ,abortion, children,, existence of the federal government, the existence of government, are all issies where there is major disagreement with one another and with Objectivism.
Maybe it would be more helpful is you suggested a specific group of libertarians who we could achieve common political goals with?
The libertarian party seemed okay to me. I wouldn't say they are perfect. I think pointing out that there are some libertarians on forums and elsewhere who do not agree on some issues is a bit of a straw man.
I never said or implied to work for anarchy with anarcho-capitalists. Also libertarain used to be a term that meant social anarchist. So there's a potential straw men as well.
It's not like everyone who claims to be an objectivist agrees with every other objectivist. If the things you said are in some libertarian party document, than I shall gladly accept my defeat.
Maybe I should refer to them as enlightened classical liberal libertarians from now on.
-
-
As far as I can tell human cloning is ethical as long as it is voluntary.
Maybe there should be some copyright on someone's genom, but other than that I can't see anything wrong with it...
...but maybe I am wrong.
-
43 minute mark:
#t=2596s -
And here we are criticizing libertarians for not being unified.
-
I don't get it
Let's say that's true.
So what exactly is you interest in getting these two groups who are opposed to your ideas united? Why would you want to help us work towards ideas that contradict everything you believe in?
Isn't it a bit unfair to say everything. As far as I can tell the difference is only in implementation and not in principle. Also isn't the whole point of this topic is that ideological differences that don't change the common goal of a group don't necessarily matter in politics?
-
I did not wish speak about any particular group like the LP, but since my argument was attacked from the point of view that there are many who claim to be libertarian, but are socialists and anarchist I had to point out that there are those who aren't and that the groups no objectivist would support aren't the ones I was referring to with the label libertarian.
I did not start this topic to find out why Objecitivists don't support libertarians. I am fairly aware of the reason. I made a positive argument for the "unification" on the political level not on the epistemological or moral levels. Just as individually objectivists can support this guy or that guy so can they the support a group. By support I mean vote or provide money or join. I do not see any moral difference between the methods of supporting a party. Support is support. A is A. We also know that doing something alone or in a group won't make any difference in a moral context. Right is right, wrong is wrong.
Mary Ruwart or any other anarchist never got the nomination in the end. There is a anarcho capitalist wing of the libertarian party just like there is a libertarian wing of the republican party. Those kind of things are normal even in a one party socialist system. What is more interesting is why there isn't an objectivist wing of the libertarian party. What could we loose? My argument is that we would gain and not loose. They are subjectivist? Teach them objectivism. They misrepresent ideas? Put their ideas in the right place. An anarcho capitalist is running for nomination? Vote for an objectivist. These things happen because objectivists aren't there. If the people with objective moral values are not in a party than the party will not have objective values.
I have been part of a political organisation for many years and I think the objectivist view of politics is a bit naive. If you discriminate people too much in a party that can only survive on votes you will eventually destroy the whole movement the same way objectivists split again and again. That may be fine for a movement and for objectvism but for a political party, not so much. A party needs votes a party needs numbers a party needs majority, a movement does not. Different contracts need different terms. The irony here is that because objectivists refuse to be active and take risks their ideas will never be at the place they were meant to be.
-
1, 2, 4, and 5 can be said of many other political philosophies/their members. (You're going to get people on all sides of the fence no matter how clear your philosophy is: an example would be self-proclaimed theistic objectivists.) 8 is untrue by the OP's standards, since he believes there is some common political goal worth uniting for. But 3, 6, and 7 are very concerning problems, with 3 and 6 being inherent in Libertarianism. (Edit: Actually there's a really good example of this subjectivism in dream_weaver's thread - Russell Means, a complete socialist, ran for the LP ticket and placed 2nd in the LNC. See his most popular speech, "For America to Live, Europe Must Die." That is something you really don't want to be associated with.)
He is not running now am I right? I mean that was like what 25 years ago? If that guy were the candidate I would see no reason to support the LP, but he's not.
-
What common political goal? Just because you call something the same thing, doesn't make it the same thing. Your version of capitalism has nothing in common with Rand's.
What gave you the idea that libertarians agree with my version of capitalism? I never said or implied such a thing. You're the one who brought up my old topics. No Libertarian not even anarcho-capitailsts would agree with me on that topic just like no objectivist does, which again is another example of the two being similar.
-
Dániel, perhaps you should answer the one direct question I asked: Did you change your mind on Capitalism, under which the government holds a monopoly on retaliatory force? You used to be against that.
If not, I don't see the point of this conversation. If you think Objectivist Politics is similar to the things you argue for in some of the other threads, you're pretty obviously wrong.
I guess you are right. In my version of capitalism government would hold absolute force, but would not have a monopoly. However the state would still defend the rights of the people through contractors, and would punish the contractors if needed be so it is still capitalism. The role of the government is still to defend the rights of man, and it is still done through objective law. Just as any objectivist would want it.
By the way in the U.S. prisons are often operated by contractors and while in that case that's not a very good idea it is still a fact that a private force keeps people in jail. Supposedly such a thing should lead to something very bad if what I propose is wrong.
Anyway I don't see how my personal opinion matters in this case. It's not like I am recruiting for anybody. I am only talking about policy, whether it's objectively right or wrong has little to do with me.
Support? I never heard Peikoff or anyone at ARI suggest that we ought to support any political parties. As far as I know, they've all been consistently urging Objectivists to reject all bad policies and ideologies, even as they vote for/ contribute monetarily to the lesser evil in an effort to avoid the greater one coming to power.
The OP isn't suggesting that we merely vote Libertarian this year (which I plan on doing, as my avatar might betray - in fact I consider Johnson a great candidate, not just a "lesser evil"), he wants us to work together towards some supposed common goal because Libertarianism and Objectivism are supposedly similar ideologies.
Well I do think objectivism and libertarianism in some way are similar, but that's not my point. My point is that as long as there is a common political goal there's really no reason to join together as long as ones principles don't have to be changed. The philosophy is different, if we can call libertarianism a philosophy, but the goals the real goals are mostly the same. Except for the war issue. As I said it's a trade.
Look et christians. The only reason they are a political force is because they can put aside their differences in politics for their common goals. Even a mormon could become a president, but not an atheist.
-
Aren't Objectivists (which is not to say "Objectivism" necessarily, but possibly including "prominent Objectivists") continually arguing that we ought to support X Lesser Evil in politics, and specifically because it is the "lesser evil"? Am I imagining/misremembering that happening?
You are not wrong, but as you said that has little to do with objectvism in general.
Which is why I don't think it's relevant...
-
No, we don't. Libertarians are a fringe minority, and whenever they "support" Ayn Rand's ideas, they do it by misrepresenting them to others. They do that to the point that most of the general population actually associates Ayn Rand with Libertarianism, despite the fact that she openly denounced the movement.
A minority yes, but a minority that has been growing constantly that last few years.
Maybe if there were more objectivists among libertarians they could help libertarians to present Rand's ideas correctly. That's what Yaron Brooks been doing.
He has been on Stossel's show (who is a libertarian) and gave lectures to tea party members and he didn't denounce them at all.
I am well aware that Rand denounced libertarians, but unless she had a valid objective reason that applies today as well, I don't care.
What we need is for Libertarians to start acknowledging that Objectivism is not something they understand or stand for. That their contact with Objectivism, which is a philosophy not a political movement, is tangential at most. That Ayn Rand is not their personal hero, because you have to be passionate about reading and understanding someone's work, before declaring them your personal hero.
Good point. We definitely need to find conservatives who are willing to understand and support Objectivism. We also need to find young Liberals to do the same thing.
Ron was not a conservative, he became one just so he could be elected in the two party system. If marriage can be considered a deal why can't politics be considered as one as well? Ron Paul became a republican to achieve his goal and it was his philosophical integrity that got him as far as he is now, but if a objectivist were to ally with a libertarian he would loose all credibility. Why?
I doubt anyone could find an objectivist liberal. They are socialists in both name and action. Republicans are only socialists in action.
What we don't need is entrenched Libertarian pacifists and anarchists who aren't capable of having a conversation, let alone understanding anything.
I wish you would stop using faulty generalization. When I mention the libertarian party and limited government I wasn't thinking about anarchists who are not part of the party and not for any government.
Most libertarians are not pacifists at least I never heard of any libertarian who was. They are no interventionists in other words anti imperialists and anti nation builders.
The argument that libertarians are pacifists lacks proof: Yes libertarians don't want to wage war against Iran and Saud Arabia, but there's no guarantee that such wars could help against Alqeda. They would just move to another country...
Libertarians aren't anti war they are just not for unnecessary bloodshed. There may be a good case for war but as long as no one is there to say it no one will hear it.
You spent most of your stint on this board arguing against Capitalism. Now you're claiming that you're for it? Are you no longer in favor of multiple competing governments?
And if you're claiming to support Ayn Rand's politics, then you don't get to decide what is and what isn't important to Ayn Rand's politics. She already decided. And she explicitly declared the government's use of retaliatory force essential to viable Capitalism.
Your choice is to agree or disagree with her, and then state your agreement or disagreement honestly. Don't try to manufacture agreement where there is none.
I don't see how my theory that suggested that objective laws can be provided by the free market makes me an anti capitalist. Also it's a theory and it's mine, but it doesn't mean I am endorsing such a system.
Also in my second theory that I posted later I clearly stated that if force is to be privatized there should be a government that regulates the private police and writes laws in addition to its exclusive military.
The point I tried to always make that defining government as "monopoly on force" is in fact an argument from tradition and therefore not necessarily valid. What matters is objective law and monopoly on law and not the monopoly on force.
These are hypothetical. I do not claim to know the answer. Maybe that is why I put up topics about them
, but I do believe firmly that an argument from tradition is invalid even if Rand herself was the one who made it.Objectivism is against pragmatic solutions in Politics. We are concerned with what is right, not with what is a lesser evil. Just because, in the short term, Libertarian pacifism won't harm the US as much as D/R socialism will (debatable proposition, btw.), doesn't mean we should support them.
Besides, I'm not a nationalist, I care about rational people everywhere, and I believe it is in out shared interest to stick together in the face of tyranny. That's the political ideal I want people to understand, not "here's a bunch of nonsense I can't defend except by saying that it's not as bad as what the Republicans and Democrats are pushing".
I don't think what I suggested was pragmatism. Many countries collapsed due to spending issues related to war. Certainly government has to protect its citizens, but it has to protect itself as well. No money no guns.
Again libertarians aren't really pacifists they just disagree with the current foreign policy.
What I meant was that government has a tendency to grow and that right now there's a better chance to stop than when the country is called the new USSR. In Atlas Shrugged the government collapsed, but that is fiction. If you look at reality you will see that dictatorships can exists for hundreds of years. I am merely suggesting that defending rights when there is none left may be too late or at least ineffective.
-
All for one and that one is me. What I said had little to do with the "common good", whatever that might be. If having your rights protected can only be achieved by having others rights protected as well, than so be it.
I think that Ayn Rand believed and I rightly so, that a political movements divorced from a philosophical tradition is less than impotent but destructive to the erstwhile goals of that political movement, because they cannot in any coherent way articulate the why.
That's how the USA was founded. In the end Classical liberalism is no different from Modern Libertarianism. When I said libertarians are not interested in philosophy I was referring to the average Ron Paul supporter and not to the guys at the top. In Libertarian philosophy the non aggression principle is an axiom and not something that is derived from other axioms. That is the big difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism. On a political level libertarians and objectivists stand for the same values. Yes Libertarian is a term used by many, but that is no excuse to look at the people who have the right goals in mind.
Daniel, if the first responsibility of a government is self defense how would wars and the way they are fought not be one of the most important things?When you have the strongest military in the World and the question regarding war is either to attack Iran or Saud Arabia or both and when you have 16trilion $ in debt, that increases by one trillion each year and when you have indefinite QE3 and 0% interest rates, than the likelihood of the USA's collapse due to foreign military intervention is rather small. Don't worry about hosing during the flood. Republicans and Democrats will destroy the country faster than any foreign enemy could, or did you not read Atlas Shrugged?
Democracy without Elections
in Political Philosophy
Posted · Edited by Dániel Boros
Depends on what you mean by problem. It sure would be interesting how voters would react when the legislation passing laws that allows the indefinite detention of American citizens. Or when someone wants to bail out banks that are too big to fail. Or when the President wants to go to war with someone nobody cares about.
This system is meant for the federal government not for law enforcement.
I wouldn't put the poll tax too heigh otherwise voters won't vote at all. I would say 20$-30$.