NationStates

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:My point exactly. Libertarians would usually repeal restrictions against individual action, but there's no easy transition between what the individual wants and what society wants. Unchecked individualism has cost the West its happiness.

From where I'm standing "unchecked individualism" (not accurate btw) has ushered in the greatest period of prosperity humanity has achieved.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Electic wrote:I encountered Orwell in middle school as well, though that led me down the Ayn Rand path. Now that was a phase Would you say you're still libertarian?

How did you get from Orwell to Rand?

I'm still a libertarian, but I'd say I'm no longer a right-wing libertarian. I'm more of a centrist economically these days.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:The scale is different, though, and there are more checks on the hurt that is caused with a freer society.
Consider a website with 499 normal users and one administrator who holds the ability to ban users and modify the website. If that administrator goes rogue, nothing can be done to stop them.
However, if the website has 450 normal users and 50 higher-ranking people who share powers among themselves and can be recalled by the users, a single rogue administrator can be easily dealt with because their power is checked by the users and other administrators. Sure, it takes more time and work to manage this system, but it massively decreases the risk of the website being ruined.

Why not have a hierarchy involving several layers of administration? Dictatorship and democracy are not the only options.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:Imagine unironically thinking the States can be used as an example of freedom in government.

Then what is an example?

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:Sometimes. We're in an era where our government is corrupt, so probably not as much today. Our government needs reform, and our system needs to be repaired, but that is no reason to give up on freedom.

Freedom is the reason the government is corrupt.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:Sometimes. We're in an era where our government is corrupt, so probably not as much today. Our government needs reform, and our system needs to be repaired, but that is no reason to give up on freedom.

Freedom is the reason the government is corrupt. You can't really legislate anti-corruption, as much as you'd like to be able to.

Cekoviu wrote:

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:Why not have a hierarchy involving several layers of administration? Dictatorship and democracy are not the only options.

That's the second option, the point being that there are multiple people who can check each other on each layer. That part is similar to NS's leadership layout.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:Then what is an example?

There is none that is perfect. Some Western European countries come somewhat closer than the United States, since they have less police brutality, undemocratic means of electing officials, etc. They are still flawed, in particular with surveillance and restrictions on free speech.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:That's the second option, the point being that there are multiple people who can check each other on each layer. That part is similar to NS's leadership layout.

There is none that is perfect. Some Western European countries come somewhat closer than the United States, since they have less police brutality, undemocratic means of electing officials, etc. They are still flawed, in particular with surveillance and restrictions on free speech.

Western Europe is more hierarchical than the US, and in that sense, less free. The restrictions they have are the reason they are so great. My ideal society rests somewhere in between Dengism and the Nordic Model.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:That's the second option, the point being that there are multiple people who can check each other on each layer. That part is similar to NS's leadership layout.

There is none that is perfect. Some Western European countries come somewhat closer than the United States, since they have less police brutality, undemocratic means of electing officials, etc. They are still flawed, in particular with surveillance and restrictions on free speech.

Western Europe is more hierarchical than the US, and in that sense, less free. The restrictions they have are the reason they are so great. My ideal society rests somewhere in between Dengism and the Nordic Model.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:Freedom is the reason the government is corrupt. You can't really legislate anti-corruption, as much as you'd like to be able to.

How? How does freedom corrupt the government? From what I can tell, it tends to be unfree nations that have the most corrupt governments, such as North Korea.

Cekoviu wrote:

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:Western Europe is more hierarchical than the US, and in that sense, less free. The restrictions they have are the reason they are so great. My ideal society rests somewhere in between Dengism and the Nordic Model.

Hierarchy does not necessarily mean something is less free. In the metaphor that I proposed, the form with more hierarchical steps (and hence less of a power disparity between layers) was more free.

Cekoviu wrote:

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:Western Europe is more hierarchical than the US, and in that sense, less free. The restrictions they have are the reason they are so great. My ideal society rests somewhere in between Dengism and the Nordic Model.

Hierarchy does not necessarily mean something is less free. In the metaphor that I proposed, the form with more hierarchical steps (and hence less of a power disparity between layers) was more free.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:Freedom is the reason the government is corrupt. You can't really legislate anti-corruption, as much as you'd like to be able to.

How? How does freedom corrupt the government? From what I can tell, it tends to be unfree nations that have the most corrupt governments, such as North Korea.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:From where I'm standing "unchecked individualism" (not accurate btw) has ushered in the greatest period of prosperity humanity has achieved.

At the cost of the environment, happiness, great wars, and colonialism. Let's not pretend this is all sunshine and rainbows.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:Hierarchy does not necessarily mean something is less free. In the metaphor that I proposed, the form with more hierarchical steps (and hence less of a power disparity between layers) was more free.

It inherently does. The more distance there is between you and high leadership, the less control you have over your personal life. That's less freedom.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:How? How does freedom corrupt the government? From what I can tell, it tends to be unfree nations that have the most corrupt governments, such as North Korea.

Freedom to fund certain public officials, for one. That's kind of the definition of corruption. Additionally, lack of restrictions on corporations led to the rise of political machines in places like NYC during the Gilded Age. It is in the light of restrictions on those freedoms that prosperity emerged.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:Freedom to fund certain public officials, for one. That's kind of the definition of corruption. Additionally, lack of restrictions on corporations led to the rise of political machines in places like NYC during the Gilded Age. It is in the light of restrictions on those freedoms that prosperity emerged.

It doesn't contradict my view of freedom to restrict money from entering the political process.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:It doesn't contradict my view of freedom to restrict money from entering the political process.

It does make the government more corrupt, though.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:It doesn't contradict my view of freedom to restrict money from entering the political process.

It does make the government more corrupt, though.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:Page 500!

Pacomia wrote:

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:It does make the government more corrupt, though.

Not as corrupt as most more unfree nations.

Kowani wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:Page 500!

Yay.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:It does make the government more corrupt, though.

No, I said, restricting money from being donated to public officials does not contradict my view of freedom.