Assange Promises to Shake Up Hillary

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Neuhaus, Aug 25, 2016.

Loading...
  1. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member


    Hence imposed upon the rest. As in Venezuela. Now a majority of Venezuelans would get rid of it if they could, but they can't. How is it that they can't get rid of it? Could it be that socialism cannot be just economic?

    In looking at economic and social freedom, as we arbitrarily do, and as graphed in the Nolan Chart, it's worth considering that you can't much control one without controlling the other.
     
  2. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly

    When three wolves and a sheep vote on what to have for dinner that's still a considerable imposition on the sheep.
     
  3. sanantone

    sanantone Well-Known Member

    I don't know what you're seeing in the Nolan Chart, but it easily allows for less economic freedom without restrictions on social freedom. The reason why Venezuela cannot get rid of its economic system is because of its governmental system. The UK was quite successful in voting itself out of the EU. Anyone who is in the minority will have a law imposed upon him or her. The only way you can get away from having anything imposed upon you is by moving to a place that has no form of government and possibly no other people around.

    Even your party doesn't call for the abolishment of all taxes. What if I don't want to pay any taxes? What is the Libertarian Party going to do? Fine me? Jail me?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2016
  4. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly

    The point of the Nolan Chart is to show the opposite.
     
  5. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly

    While I think Johnson is the pick of this particular litter, that doesn't make his party mine.

    LP members aren't all alike. Some moderates might do that. Some radicals might say that if it can't be funded voluntarily, then it shouldn't get funded. Another positions I've heard of is a land tax with confiscation for repeated non-payment, but no other tax. So your mileage may vary on that one.
     
  6. sanantone

    sanantone Well-Known Member

    When you choose to live in a democracy, you choose to live under majority rules. I don't know how successful one can be in escaping the government. I guess there are people who live off the grid and don't have to worry about any laws.
     
  7. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    Where did you get that idea?
     
  8. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    The United States is not a democracy.
     
  9. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly

    If the axes aren't independent, why bother have more than one?
     
  10. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member


    It's for philosophical positioning, although totalitarians tend to converge to a point furthest from absolute freedom.

    Libertarians have always decried the effect the WOD has had on our 'financial freedoms.' The WOD is why my bank must report my transactions over some dollar amount, or, if I'm 'structuring' transactions to stay below that amount. The WOD is why my cash may be taken from me (maybe not in New York) if I'm carrying 'too much' of it.

    I've long wished a variation of the Nolan Chart would intuitively capture the effect of restricting freedom on one arbitrary axis leading to restricting freedom on the other.
     
  11. sanantone

    sanantone Well-Known Member

    When did I say that? I used the word democracy as a general, governmental term. Throughout this exchange, I've been talking about countries across the world. The U.S. has been called a representative democracy and a republic. Either way, you're still living under majority rule.
     
  12. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly

    Sort of. I expect that the public faces change, but that the real decision makers stay the same.
     
  13. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member


    The U.S. is a republic, or is supposed to be. If, against the U.S. Constitution, we've come to be under majority rule then that's due to a Congressional attitude summed up by Nancy Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
     
  14. sanantone

    sanantone Well-Known Member

    The U.S. is ruled by the majority with some protection of minority rights. The Constitution is set up in a way that allows for more populous states to have more sway. You also have to look at the governments of individual states. In Texas, residents vote for constitutional amendments and vote directly for the governor and lieutenant governor. If I don't like the majority's choices, there is nothing I can do.
     
  15. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly

    The Constitution is set up in a way that allows for less populous states to have more sway, e.g., the Senate with its equal representation for states regardless of population, and the Electoral College that weighs rural states more heavily. I mean, that's why Bush became president in 2000 even though Gore got more popular votes.
     
  16. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    A deliberate leashing of majority rule.
     
  17. sanantone

    sanantone Well-Known Member

    The Constitution is set up in a way that gives less populous states disproportionate representation, but they do not have more. The most populous states still have more electoral votes and more members in the House of Representatives. The Electoral College rarely has a different outcome from the popular vote. The outcome of the Bush vs Gore election had to do with proportional representation rather than every single vote counting. The difference in votes between the two was relatively small. Ironically, since you brought up that election, the deciding state is one of the most populous states in the country.
     
  18. sanantone

    sanantone Well-Known Member

    ...with minority rule. The idea behind the electoral college was elitist.
     
  19. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    If elitism means reining in the passions of the mob, something understood from at least the time of the Hellenistic world.
     
  20. sanantone

    sanantone Well-Known Member

    You are also giving up freedom by having all decisions made by an aristocracy. Honestly, the original system did not do a good job of recognizing the rights of all human beings either.
     

Share This Page