It's Time to Speak the Truth...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Before I go here is an except from business week article on one of these studies, and one that illustrates my point well:

“Capitalism Ã?¢?? sometimes criticized for its heartlessness Ã?¢?? was far from a source of discontent, though the top-scoring capitalist countries also tended to have strong social services.”

US was 23rd in that particular one.[/quote]

What is the fundamental unit of measurement for “happiness”?[/quote]

Why, the util of course, I kid you not.

Rather elusive little bastard, but I am told that this is also true for some particles in physics.

122

[quote]Dabba wrote:
Actually, the legal system that Lifticus is promoting here would be quite aggressive. A legal system which basically shuns you from any sort of business if you don’t comply with its rulings essentially uses coercion as well, just in a different way. Instead of mandating a law in which someone is forced to do something, they promote the idea that businesses and people should close their doors - using the threat of force - in order to castigate someone who has broken the law.

That is in many ways more violent and coercive than the system now in place.

That being said, Lifticus, what is your fetish with “voluntary”? Private property is NOT voluntary, and thank god it’s not. Any system that truly relied only on voluntary interaction would not have a functioning economy, it would simply be anarchy in the pejorative.

I hope I get an answer this time.[/quote]

Yeah, I guess if nobody wants to do business with you because you are a lying conniving bastard and never pay your bills you are “coerced” to behave like a halfway decent human being.

I hope your post was satire, or else I am offended by how coercive it was.

123

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Western Europe has been consistently found to be the happiest place to live by every contemporary study on the subject of which I am aware. One notable example is a study done by the organization for economic cooperation and development in 2009, you can search for it if you like.
[/quote]

So we have finally found a way to quantify happiness.

Excellent.
[/quote]

Smug comments aside, my statement that there have been studies done and that those studies have concluded that people are relatively more happy in Western Europe than elsewhere (based on health, job satisfaction, average income vs. cost of living, instances of depression, etc.) stands as it did before your interjection.

[/quote]

One quick thing to point out as the Scandinavian countries are often roped into socialism discussions. I have mentioned this debating Ryan (the communist) but it bears repeating. There are two primary types of government intervention in an economy, both of which have their own peculiar set of effects. 1) Taxation and 2) Regulation. You can have differing mixes of both. Scandinavian countries tend to have extremely high taxation, which is where they get the reputation for big government, but have surprisingly low regulation. So they do have high tax rates which cause some drags on the economy, but they also have markets as lightly regulated as our own and in some cases are LESS regulated than the US.

Not saying you are denying this, but many assume these countries are far more socialized/regulated than they are in many instances. The US has moderate taxation, but has much higher and byzantine regulation than many care to acknowledge. Compare filing your taxes in the US with filing your taxes in Britain. In Britain you can do it in about 5 minutes on 1 form. Good luck with that here.

124

I would also point out that much of Western Europe’s recent prosperity is more than likely all about to come to an end. As the rapid adoption of austerity measures have shown, you cannot live beyond your means indefinitely.

As an analogy, if I go buy a bunch of video games, clothes and cars I would be very happy for a period of time. Much happier in fact than if I had been socking money away and sacrificing that whole time. But when the creditors come knocking that gravy train comes to a screeching halt. We are seeing this now all throughout western Europe.

125

kilpaba:

You may be right about regulations in scandinavian countrys( I am no expert on the matter, so I dont know ),
but what you have in my country( norway ) is a state that owns large amounts of the norwegian economy.
The norwegian state is the largest owner of the norwegian stockmarket. This is probably why many look at
scandinavia as more socialist-ish + We have the cooperative system wichs means that the state, unions and
the employer-organization togheter set the tarrifs on wages each year. So we have alot of property own
by the people trough the state or the communes and you have a working class that have infuence and solid rights
becuase of a strong union and laws that the union and the political left have tought trough the last 70years.
I guess that makes my country more leaning towards socialism than usa or britain for that matter, if we
understand socialism as an interrest ideology for the workingclass. ps. the income tax in norway are at 36%
for a average income, its less for poorer people and higher for some richer people, but we have alot of
saletaxes that are stupid high.

126

[quote]orion wrote:
Yeah, I guess if nobody wants to do business with you because you are a lying conniving bastard and never pay your bills you are “coerced” to behave like a halfway decent human being.

I hope your post was satire, or else I am offended by how coercive it was.

[/quote]

What? TB23 and Lifticus were both under the impression that coercion was not an essential feature of a stateless legal system. They were incorrect.

I hope you take the context of a post into account next time.

Also, it’s not simply that. It’s that private property itself is coercive. IE, if I don’t agree to your property norms and try to set up shop in your business, you can use force to exclude me. All private property is coercion over a specific plot of land. It is just very small scale coercion.

127

[quote]Dabba wrote:

What? TB23 and Lifticus were both under the impression that coercion was not an essential feature of a stateless legal system. They were incorrect.[/quote]

Well, no, I was not under an impression that a stateless legal system had no “coercion” - I said that its “coercion” was feckless in terms of engineering justice, i.e., forcing deadbeats to provide child support when they otherwise won’t.

The idea of being “shunned” is, well, foolish - other businesses wouldn’t be legally required to “shun” anyone, and from the point of view of raw economics, a business isn’t going to “shun” someone who is otherwise a paying customer of their goods and services just because that paying customer happens to be a deadbeat in the area of child support.

And more besides, this “theory” falters for the same reasons Lifticus’ does - businesses don’t “shun” deadbeats now, and there is absolutely no reason to think they would suddenly start all this coercive “shunning” in a stateless legal system.

It makes no sense. Anarchy simply makes no sense. A “stateless legal system” is a contradiction in terms, and it wouldn’t solve any of these problems.

128

Some news releases on the studies I was talking about:

A very subjective one (based only on surveys of people’s “satisfaction”) : World's Happiest Places

Measuring “prosperity”, much more objective (focusing on per capita GDP, health care, etc.) : World's Happiest Places

Another, based on the UN’s Human Development Index (taking into account life expectancy, literacy rates, school enrollment, economy) : BBC News - Norway 'the best place to live'

This last one seems to have gotten the least happy places on Earth right: Niger, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone.

Not bulletproof by any means, but something to think about–the largest economy on the planet doesn’t necessarily correlate with the best or even more prosperous place on the planet. You obviously can’t really quantify happiness, but in these studies there may be at least some lesson to be learned.

129

Your original post mentions your interest in anarchism

Yes.

Those who profess to be anarachists are almost always Marxist-type nutters like Noam Chomsky for instance.

I am not really sure how this works out.

I will explain. Anarchism and Marxism are intimately connected and both had their origins in the students of Professor Hegel, both called for violent overthrow of democratic governments, both involved the abolishment of social hierarchy(i.e. class warfare - wealth redistribution).

You also mentioned in your original post that you haven’t read an awesome book on monarchies.

I know, exactly what I meant. I have read a dozen books or so on them, what I was pointing out was that I hadn’t just picked up a book skimmed it and said…I’m a Monarchist.

Good for you. I would also suggest Xenophon’s ‘The Polity of the Spartans’ who had a very unusual system of two kings sharing power.

I guess I was a bit hostile but dealing with left-wingers tends to bring out the raging bull in me. Especially since 9/11.

And, I’m a conservative. So, you don’t have to worry about me.

Someone who’s an anarchist one day, a monarchist the next and now a conservative doesn’t worry me. Just makes me laugh.

Your ideas on a constitutional monarchy don’t seem to have any practical purpose.

Why do you say that?

I might be a little slow, but because I can’t think of single reason how this would improve our society. In fact the cost of maintaining a Royal Family would just be an extra burden on the tax payer. I can’t even believe I’m giving credence to this idea. It’s beyond ridiculous.

How would installing a monarchy with no political power advance our society?

Advance = Progress? Are you a progressive now?

What do you mean ‘now’? When have I ever said what my political persuasions are? Also, advancement of civilisation and the political concept of a ‘progressive’ are two different things as I suspect even you know. And, yes I am a REAL progressive. A REAL liberal. A REAL humanitarian. For instance instead of supporting Palestinian neo-Nazism I support Israeli democracy. Instead of supporting a nanny state that creates losers, junkies, a culture of victimhood and 15-year-old single mothers I support personal responsibility.

How come you keep switching between absolute power and no political power? Because I never said any of those things. A powerless monarch is useless, and an absolute monarch is dangerous.

Switching? I recommended Hobbes as a good read. I assumed that you weren’t so naive that you believed the United States could/would instal a Monarch and endow him/her with political power in the 21st Century. Monarchies with any real political power went out of style after the battle of Waterloo. Whilst the British Monarch maintains certain powers(for instance the Queen COULD dismiss the democractically elected Australian Prime Minister). These sorts of archaic powers would NEVER be used.

How would we choose a royal family?

I can’t say, particularly. It would have to be an organic process.

An ‘organic’ process? WTF?

It would also require the abolishment of the declaration of Independence. It all seems a little ridiculous to me.

Why would it mean the abolishment of the declaration of Independence?

“We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states…and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.”

I assumed you were calling for a single Monarch as opposed to 46/50. Can we have Arnie for King of California? I can’t even believe I’m bothering with this shite.

EDIT: Don’t know how to fix quotes and have neither time nor inclination to figure it out. Have removed them all to make it easier for you. Can’t see why it would prevent you from being able to read it anyway.

130

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Can we have Arnie for King of California? [/quote]

Sorry, can you fix your brackets. I can’t read what you wrote.