New World Order (NWO), sometimes called the Great Reset

[Dilip Panjwani]

Ok, you are mentioning the NEGATIVE aspects of government power, i.e. the electioneering, the bribing and lobbying. There is also a POSITIVE aspect of government power, which is the limiting of corporate power involved in bribing. and lobbying. If government can bribe and lobby, so can corporations, can we agree on that? Therefore we need to severely limit both government AND corporate power to bribe and lobby.

We should not assume that corporations do not engage in the same underhanded techniques as government. We should recognize human nature in both government structures and corporate structures, treat them the same in that respect

If the politicians get bribed, we end up with laws helpful to the briber, but harmful to others. The politicians' power to frame whatever laws they want to, is the problem (and the issue we are discussing), which gets removed in Libertarianism.

[Pargat Perrer]

A very good and genuine question, Pargat!

Ok, this is progress, I'm not being called a nasty troll just because I ask a genuine question. Let's see where this goes.....

Let us first look at the negativity of current forms of government:
Most, if not all, politicians are in politics because they make a lot of money doing so, almost all of it with underhand deals.

I have agreed completely with this all along, and have suggested we need to have politicians who are rewarded minimally so that we know they do their work out of a driven desire for the betterment of society. I did not see this addressed in the LIbertarian "manifesto", so Dilip if it is there, please express it. If it matches what I just wrote, I'm all for it.

That is why it has been called 'a blood sport', in which they want to win elections by hook or crook or destroying others. And it is so because of the power to meddle in everyone else's 'business' that winning elections gives them. And if there is a 'voting block' they can please by 'bribing with stupid laws', they would do so, even if it unfairly harms large numbers of those who would not be voting for them anyway... So, a good system is one in which the government and its bureaucracy has minimal power (power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely...)

Ok, you are mentioning the NEGATIVE aspects of government power, i.e. the electioneering, the bribing and lobbying. There is also a POSITIVE aspect of government power, which is the limiting of corporate power involved in bribing. and lobbying. If government can bribe and lobby, so can corporations, can we agree on that? Therefore we need to severely limit both government AND corporate power to bribe and lobby.

We should not assume that corporations do not engage in the same underhanded techniques as government. We should recognize human nature in both government structures and corporate structures, treat them the same in that respect.

Now what can the government do for the citizens?

1. Administer justice in an easily accessible and lawyerism-free manner, so that the crooks amongst us cannot harm the decent amongst us, irrespective of how wealthy the crooks and poor the decent ones are.

This is a great ideal, but it runs into the problem of the so-called Natural Law being in effect a decree. A one-size-fits-all Natural Law can never be truly fair because we really can't concisely define this concept of "fair competition" which is the exempting clause that allows (in Libertarianism) for harm done to others free from retribution.

I know Dilip you've written here that judges and juries can define fair competition, but judges and juries are just as corruptible as governments and corporations. We have to recognize that corruption can occur in ANY societal grouping -- government, corporations, judges, juries, police, and as Covid proved to us, even health administration. Corruption is in fact very well entrenched in all these groupings.

It isn't enough to just avoid more corruption. We must REMOVE the existing corruption, which basically involves a societal reset.

So what to have instead of a Natural Law? This gets to the heart of the matter because it will declare WHO GETS TO DECIDE.

If the politicians get to decide, AND the politicians are very low paid and unglorified, we have a chance at a truly fair system of justice. But as I've already written, ALL groupings of humans are corruptible, and the corruption is like rust on metal, it is absolutely GUARANTEED to occur. So incorruptible politicians, low-pair and unglorified as they may be, will not last.

Even back when the U.S. Constitution was being written, there were predictions that corruption would infest in the future, and those predictions have been proven true. Therefore it seems we can only have a near-perfect political system if we also have a near-perfect HUMAN NATURE which seems .... not attainable.

This suggests an even stronger societal reset, a reset that strikes humanity to its very core. I will elaborate at the end of this post.

2. Encourage new ventures, big and small, by making capital needed for business readily available to all (and not only to Trumps who have friends in big banks whom they 'deceive' with false statements and whom they bribe).
.....

This seems the weakest argument of Libertarianism. True, we don't want the bribing and deceiving "Trumps" getting most of the investment capital. But we also do not want ALL getting the investment capital. As I pointed out in an earlier post, we tried that back in the very early 2000s with the dot-com boom in which capital was doled out in huge amounts to anyone with an idea. The actual idea didn't matter, just that there WAS an idea. Oh, you have an idea? Here's $200k, run with it!

The dot com bubble burst and it was not pretty. And it proved that equal opportunity to capital is NOT EVER going to work and we were stupid to think it could.

3. Have a 'circles within circles' set up (which Bob loves), with all circles following the same political philosophy, so that everyone is easily connected with everyone else, and yet individual circles are independent to some extent. And if such a system encompasses the entire world population, we shall not be wasting resources on militaries or have 'border-related issues' at all.

Again, total societal reset is the only thing that could bring this about.

4. There unfortunately always are a few individuals and families who fall on hard times for very little fault of their own, and need altruistic help to get back on their own feet. The 'circles within circles' set up would greatly facilitate such charitable acts taking place...

Ok, great.

5. Provide lots and lots of factual information to the citizens, who can then make their own decisions on various matters, rather than 'mandating' what the corrupt politicians' corrupt friends want the citizens to do...

Sure, no problem on this point.

Hope this helps; essentially, success is measured by how happy the citizens are...

Well.... there is always the concept of being led to Hell in a handbasket!


Ok.... time to define what societal reset might entail.

What about an AI government?

Isaac Asimov wrote many robot novels, and devised the 3 laws of robotics. I encourage anyone not knowing about this to google it.

Is it possible that all future politicians -- who decide the laws that humans must obey -- be AIs, presumably incorruptible much like Asimov's robots?

Is it the only political future that makes possible species survival?

[Dilip Panjwani]

Democratic Marxism & the Incentive System

Dilip Panjwani - Post # 426 - 23/9/29

"in DM..... rewards are not tied to these [ effort and ...... hard and smart work]"; "in a DM society ...... people take the 'easy route' (only eat, drink, play and dance)"

Response

It is part of human nature to wish to be recognized for contributory effort. Democratic Marxism fully accepts that this dynamic must be accounted for in its economic/political system.

So there will be recognition in DM for "hard and smart work".

But DM does NOT accept that this recognition should be by the allowing of the amassing of obscene wealth/income. This is the Capitalist reward system, within the context of an ever-widening wealth/income gap, the necessary consequence of Capitalism. Note that Libertarianism is, at its heart, a Laissez-Faire Capitalism system:

Wikipedia

"In the mid-20th century, American right-libertarian^[35] proponents of anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opted^[13] the term libertarian to advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources.^[36] The latter is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States.^[34] "


Dilip bleats consistently that MP Pierre Poilievre (Conservative Party Leader), and HE, see Libertarianism as NOT Capitalist.......well, they're the only two!! Or, maybe they are really, both, SOMETHING ELSE dressed up in the sheep's clothing of a brand of Libertarianism that does not exist, except in their two well-developed (?) minds.

DM will factor into its system recognitions and rewards for "hard and smart work", and contribution to the community, which are compatible with a modest quality of life in a democratic and altruistic system, based on equality of all.

Bob A (DM'er)

Bob A. is now hoping that his marxist leaders of DM will be the omnipotent arbiters of who gets what, using some magical methods involving legal theft, trying to emulate what true Libertarianism is designed to automatically achieve, which is: "there will be rewards for "hard and smart work without the amassing of obscene wealth/income". He is desperately trying to ignore the fact that amassing of obscene wealth occurs only because of corrupt politicians passing corrupt laws in exchange for bribes from corrupt capitalists, and that Libertarianism by its very design, prevents this, by ensuring that politicians do not have the power to pass any laws against the Natural Law.
This is what his favorite Wikipedia says about DM: "Democratic Marxism is authentic Marxism: loyalty to the movement, not loyalty to any particular doctrine. During years of democratic Marxist government, however, Chile faced severe economic and political crises". What else except crises as in Chile, could one expect from authentic marxism, democratically ordained or not?
Bob, use the little time you say you have wisely, by reading what I have written about true Libertarianism... and do not get repeatedly lost in confusing nomenclature...
The good news is that what Libertarianism offers you is a solid system to achieve exactly what you want DM to achieve, by using the implementation of Natural Law, instead of using the doctrine of legal theft, and history shows that glamorizing legal theft has invariably led to disaster for the society doing so (and which led to near-downfall of the previously very rich, rich because of their uncorrupted capitalism, Scandinavian countries in the 1980s, till they dramatically reversed their most socialist laws like progressive taxation).
And in your role as the self appointed micro-democratic secretary, do mention in your chesstalk summary on DM, if you have the honesty, that the majority (as you define it) of chesstalk posters consider your DM to be BS!

[Bob Armstrong]

Democratic Marxism & the Incentive System

Dilip Panjwani - Post # 426 - 23/9/29

"in DM..... rewards are not tied to these [ effort and ...... hard and smart work]"; "in a DM society ...... people take the 'easy route' (only eat, drink, play and dance)"

Response

It is part of human nature to wish to be recognized for contributory effort. Democratic Marxism fully accepts that this dynamic must be accounted for in its economic/political system.

So there will be recognition in DM for "hard and smart work".

But DM does NOT accept that this recognition should be by the allowing of the amassing of obscene wealth/income. This is the Capitalist reward system, within the context of an ever-widening wealth/income gap, the necessary consequence of Capitalism. Note that Libertarianism is, at its heart, a Laissez-Faire Capitalism system:

Wikipedia

"In the mid-20th century, American right-libertarian^[35] proponents of anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opted^[13] the term libertarian to advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources.^[36] The latter is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States.^[34] "


Dilip bleats consistently that MP Pierre Poilievre (Conservative Party Leader), and HE, see Libertarianism as NOT Capitalist.......well, they're the only two!! Or, maybe they are really, both, SOMETHING ELSE dressed up in the sheep's clothing of a brand of Libertarianism that does not exist, except in their two well-developed (?) minds.

DM will factor into its system recognitions and rewards for "hard and smart work", and contribution to the community, which are compatible with a modest quality of life in a democratic and altruistic system, based on equality of all.

Bob A (DM'er)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Political Systems

Pargat Perrer - Post # 410 - 23/9/28

1. "there can never ba a perfect OR EVEN A NEAR-PERFECT political system."

Response

You need to distinguish between the "objective comparative value" of political systems, and the number of persons who may adopt a political system. People are quite wedded to their own personal subjective political systems, regardless of comparison of performance of other political systems, or their political system being validly critiqued (i.e. Dilip's continued adherence to Libertarianism, despite its severe shortcomings having been posted here, and agreed to by many here).

That being said.........yup.......no human institution is without flaws, generally including corruption (And Religions - a human institution - are not exempt). This includes all our various political systems.

2. "Therefore.... how do we MEASURE the success of any political system?"

Response

The closer to equality for all, including equality of opportunity, the better the society.



Bob A

Of course equality of opportunity, as provided in Libertarianism, is needed, but what about equality of effort and equality of hard and smart work? These latter do not seem to count in DM, and because rewards are not tied to these, what happens in a DM society is that people take the 'easy route' (only eat, drink, play and dance) to living their lives (who wouldn't?), which obviously leads to overall stagnation and poverty for all (even the power holding politicians and their sycophants eventually meet misery in such a society), as history has time and again shown about marxism, communism and socialism... the eating, drinking, playing and dancing soon gets replaced with weeping and agony. Is that what you want, Bob? Remember, you cannot defy human nature.
Looking forward to your enlightenment and good riddance to all the delusionary posts you have been making. It may be too much to ask of you, despite you being a believer in micro-democracy (but forgetting that a majority of four posters, Sid, Fred, Neil and me, are 'voting' for that), but there is always hope... (don't get me wrong: we do not want to snatch away your right to post, but just pray for your enlightenment)

[Bob Armstrong]

I've previously mentioned this book:

Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered - a collection of essays published in 1973 by German-born British economist E. F. Schumacher.

It is on the Democratic Marxist's basic reading list.

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

The Scandinavian countries have a "Capitalist" economic system. It is called "Social Democracy" (Which is totally different from "Democratic Socialism - France under President Mitterrand). Social Democracy is popularly know as "Capitalism with a Human Face".

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

Sid - Post # 410 - sorry - you are right - I was responding to Pargat's Post # 410. I've edited my post # 417. Sorry for the confusion folks......moving too quickly I guess.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip, I absolutely encourage everyone to read the article you posted. I would characterize the title as misleading, but the article is good as long as you recognize the author is trying his best to put a conservative spin on it.

Yes, in Scandinavian countries, they have a blend of Capitalism and Socialism, often referred to as the Nordic model. A blended economic model.
And yes, creating much happiness relative to extreme Capitalist model of the USA.
And yes, they do a few billionaires too.

Please read it again yourself. You may want to moderate your views on taxation.

Whatever Scandinavia has, it is certainly not DM! Far from it...

[Dilip Panjwani]

Well....no! History teaches us that many societies have chosen to handle such tasks at the local, or municipal, level, and it works quite well. It's the bigger stuff, with bigger rewards to the political crooks where we get into trouble.

I think that is exactly what I said. We are in agreement!

[Fred Harvey]

The citizens and their circles need to do that themselves... history teaches us that whenever such tasks are managed by big government, misery ensues... in Bob A's vision, local governments which you allude to would be the local circles...

Well....no! History teaches us that many societies have chosen to handle such tasks at the local, or municipal, level, and it works quite well. It's the bigger stuff, with bigger rewards to the political crooks where we get into trouble.

[Sid Belzberg]

Political Systems

Sid Belzberg - Post # 410 - 23/9/28

1. "there can never ba a perfect OR EVEN A NEAR-PERFECT political system."

Response

You need to distinguish between the "objective comparative value" of political systems, and the number of persons who may adopt a political system. People are quite wedded to their own personal subjective political systems, regardless of comparison of performance of other political systems, or their political system being validly critiqued (i.e. Dilip's continued adherence to Libertarianism, despite its severe shortcomings having been posted here, and agreed to by many here).

That being said.........yup.......no human institution is without flaws, generally including corruption (And Religions - a human institution - are not exempt). This includes all our various political systems.

2. "Therefore.... how do we MEASURE the success of any political system?"

Response

A famous Canadian Judge said, I believe in a report she did on the physically and mentally challenged in the community, not in a Judgment (I may not have the quote quite right, and others have similar quotes):

"A society is measured by how it treats its most vulnerable." The Judge is (She retired from the Supreme Court of Canada in 2021) Justice Ms. Rosalie Abella.

I see implied in that the narrowing of the current Capitalist obscene wealth/wage gap. The closer to equality for all, including equality of opportunity, the better the society.

I would add to this that political systems that move towards direct democracy, over representative government, can be said to be "More Democratic", a worthy societal goal.

Bob A

Bob ,I have nothing to do with post 410 you mean Pargat I believe.

[Bob Gillanders]

You need to educate yourself, Bob G.:

https://www.heritage.org/progressivi...vian-socialism

Socialism in Scandinavia is a myth. Capitalism is what drives the countries there. There is virtually no progressive taxation. with heavy taxes on all citizens, including the middle class, which bears a far greater burden than its counterpart in the United States. According to the Center for Political Studies, low-income Danes pay an effective marginal tax rate of 56 percent, the middle class, 57 percent.
Politicians are least powerful in Sweden, with Ministers taking the bus to work. There were basically no COVID 'mandates' in Sweden as compared to the rest of the world...
Even health-care funding is based on a 'business' model, unlike in Canada, where political correctness is more important than efficiency and smart & hard work...

And despite all the above, Scandinavia also has quite a burden of unhappiness today... we could certainly do better...

Dilip, I absolutely encourage everyone to read the article you posted. I would characterize the title as misleading, but the article is good as long as you recognize the author is trying his best to put a conservative spin on it.

Yes, in Scandinavian countries, they have a blend of Capitalism and Socialism, often referred to as the Nordic model. A blended economic model.
And yes, creating much happiness relative to extreme Capitalist model of the USA.
And yes, they do a few billionaires too.

Please read it again yourself. You may want to moderate your views on taxation.

[Bob Armstrong]

Political Systems

Pargat Perrer - Post # 410 - 23/9/28

1. "there can never ba a perfect OR EVEN A NEAR-PERFECT political system."

Response

You need to distinguish between the "objective comparative value" of political systems, and the number of persons who may adopt a political system. People are quite wedded to their own personal subjective political systems, regardless of comparison of performance of other political systems, or their political system being validly critiqued (i.e. Dilip's continued adherence to Libertarianism, despite its severe shortcomings having been posted here, and agreed to by many here).

That being said.........yup.......no human institution is without flaws, generally including corruption (And Religions - a human institution - are not exempt). This includes all our various political systems.

2. "Therefore.... how do we MEASURE the success of any political system?"

Response

A famous Canadian Judge said, I believe in a report she did on the physically and mentally challenged in the community, not in a Judgment (I may not have the quote quite right, and others have similar quotes):

"A society is measured by how it treats its most vulnerable." The Judge is (She retired from the Supreme Court of Canada in 2021) Justice Ms. Rosalie Abella.

I see implied in that the narrowing of the current Capitalist obscene wealth/wage gap. The closer to equality for all, including equality of opportunity, the better the society.

I would add to this that political systems that move towards direct democracy, over representative government, can be said to be "More Democratic", a worthy societal goal.

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

..provide essential services for civilized living!

The citizens and their circles need to do that themselves... history teaches us that whenever such tasks are managed by big government, misery ensues... in Bob A's vision, local governments which you allude to would be the local circles...