Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Economy

well I believe that may be the case under some conditions, if the "transition" is successful so to speak.

something unexpected may happen, or something that the ideologues fail to consider or just simply something may go wrong.

if it fails i supposed government would be reinstated, as communist countries have now re-open to the market economy. (with a lot of nasty consequences in both cases if the experiment go equally wrong)

 

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on September 5, 2020, 6:05 am

Great message, Kellvo.

I'm largely in line with what you say.

Governments can go both ways: taking value, or adding value.
Since, like anything else, it's comprised of people who are largely driven by self-interest, it's important that the self-interest of those in charge of that government align with the population (not to say there is no individual who'd serve the people even at a personal cost, but you just shouldn't count on that to happen).

And I also agree with the ultimate individuals' responsibility.
That's why I'm not willing to accept a view that frames me as oppressed by taxation or governments -as much as I'd always reject complaining and/or feeling victim of a "feminized" society, to go back to a previous topic-.

I agree on many things too. I probably have a more cynical approach on how to get there - I think individuals or the government can and quite likely will defect on varying scales, with crime and oppressive laws respectively - but I'm confident that as long as both provide value to the other, actively work to grow their own value and have means to punish defection most forms of government (even very light ones) can work well. And I agree too, I loathe the victim mindset and rather focus on practical solutions instead of more complaining.

It's why, even though I agree with a lot of Red Pill stuff, I do my best to distance myself from it - the complaining and toxic/victim mindset that pervades it prevents acceptance of and adaptation to the reality at hand.

I firmly believe that to make a healthy government or society one has to start with the individual. If the people who make it up are well-adjusted and strong, well-versed in power dynamics and seeking mutual collaboration paired with firm and healthy boundaries, a stable and benign government will naturally evolve. The opposite is true for toxic and/or weak individuals - look at the failure of most communistic regimes and the wide disparities of capitalism alike to see what happens when selfish people successfully exploit them. I do agree that a strong and moral government built on win-win foundations can help too, and it can be engineered to an extent, but if the people are corrupted and weak no government type will help.

In short, the same process that goes into making a High Quality Man or High Quality Woman also causes healthier families, social groups, communities, governments and societies to form. And instead of insisting on a particular form of government, I want to see everyone evolve into the best expressions of themselves and see what form of government grows from that.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano
Quote from Kellvo on September 6, 2020, 2:47 pm

I probably have a more cynical approach on how to get there - I think individuals or the government can and quite likely will defect on varying scales, with crime and oppressive laws respectively - but I'm confident that as long as both provide value to the other, actively work to grow their own value and have means to punish defection most forms of government (even very light ones) can work well. And I agree too, I loathe the victim mindset and rather focus on practical solutions instead of more complaining.

Definitely many people on both sides will try to defect or overpower the other.

You can bank that if Trump had the opportunity, he would very gladly scrap all checks and balances, together with the next elections.
And most people are at least tempted to evade taxes.

That's why I think that some level of enforcement is not only to be expected, but also necessary if one wants to achieve certain group-level goals.

However, one should also be free to decide whether he wants to stay in that community/group, or leave.
The American system, requiring all US citizens to pay U.S. income tax, regardless of where they reside, does not allow that freedom. And not allowing one person to abandon the system, that's the equivalent of "tax kidnapping".

 

Kellvo and Stef have reacted to this post.
KellvoStef
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

By the way, guys, are you familiar with "flag theory"?

It's a movement to avoid taxation and governments' restrictions. To be a global citizen who is free of any jurisdiction.
I have actually reviewed a guy offering services to support that vision:

Albeit I think democratic government and supra-national organizations can add value, I personally also support the flag movement whenever one disagrees with most of what a government does, or wants to live his life without taking any government's services, but paying for whatever he chooses to use.

 

Kellvo, DM and Stef have reacted to this post.
KellvoDMStef
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

Steven Pinker on anarchy:

And that's why I think that anarchy is probably the biggest risk factor for violence worldwide

 

Stef has reacted to this post.
Stef
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

I agree, yet it is a false dilemma puting it like anarchy VS government.

The third option is of a more neutral party than the government doing the third party job to prevent interpersonal violence.

Government, because of the logic of political survival, may have, in many cases, a lot of vested interest  that are not conducive to the most fair and/or efficient solution to a given situation.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano

Fair point.

 

Stef has reacted to this post.
Stef
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

It just flash to my mind after reading this "Christine Mackinday assault, kidnapping, attempted rape and attempted murder" by her ex lover...

that maybe some of us are a little like this women who may feel protected by a strong state/male... until that state/male becomes our ex-lover and use its violence against you, or someone you care about.

and we seems to have a trauma-bond with politicians!

just half joking here, jejeje

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano

Damn, that was a top-notch debating power move though, Stef :D.
Good one.

 

Stef has reacted to this post.
Stef
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

Thank you

I mean it is just an imperfect allegory for a very complex topic, I myself I am not 100% sure about what would be really better for humanity.

Not all powerful states (and not all powerful ex-lovers) have to end turning against their exes,

thats just a worse case scenario,

it is just the risk is always there, so it should be about minimizing that risk, something modern democracies have accomplished up to a point and under most circumstances.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano