LWDT 7: The Earth and Heavens Tremble.

[Kowani]

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.

Ironically, the greatest surge in human prosperity happened when income equality was high, and capitalism checked. (Not like what we have now.)

[Electic]

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.

I think because I was already center-right, between Animal Farm and 1984 and other non-fiction books I read at the time, I went to teetering on the verge of AnCap-dom. Mellowed out after High School. I'd say I advocate a center-right lifestyle for myself, but am more liberal in how I would pursue public policies. Don't really have a label for it yet *shrug*.

[Cekoviu]

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.

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.

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

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.

[Cekoviu]

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.

Odd, then, that the Soviet Union was notoriously corrupt.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

[Cekoviu]

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.

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.

[Electic]

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.

That would be too much for me, I'm afraid

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

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.

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.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

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.

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.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

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.

This ^^

[Kowani]

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.

I think you two are looking at different kinds of freedom, at least in regards to corruption.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

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.

It's never sunshine and rainbows. Great wars, misery and colonialism exist in every political system but (with the possible exception of misery) exist to a far lesser extent in liberalism.

[Cekoviu]

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.

Also not necessarily. Some leadership roles could ideally take a hands-off approach.
Of course, that's not really the case with Europe, but that's why I didn't say they were a perfect example, only the best available.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

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.

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

[Pacomia]

500th page!

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

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.

It does make the government more corrupt, though.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Page 500!

[Pacomia]

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

It does make the government more corrupt, though.

Not as corrupt as most more unfree nations.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

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

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.

[Torrocca]

Eyy, we finally hit page 500.

[Kowani]

Page 500!

Yay.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

It does make the government more corrupt, though.

Not as corrupt as most more unfree nations.

Indeed.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Page 500!

Yay.

You should be the next OP.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

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.

Ah, okay. Then I'd say that we have different definitions, perhaps, of freedom.