What would be a good name for this ideology?

  • capitalistic feudalism

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • capitalistic republic

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • joint stock republic

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • privatized competing states

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • capitalistic provinces

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • capitalism 2.0

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • extending capitalism to states

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • states with owners and shares and valuation

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • capitalistic colonialism

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Yep. No new name is needed.
Yes we live under a soft Fascism, but somehow most Americans are completely unaware of this. Amazingly and even stupidly, many Americans think their central government protects them from harm.
But we also live under soft socialism and soft libertarianism. IMO, that's the way it should be. Take the best parts and discard the rest. Don't tie yourself to a specific ideology.
Can you give me an example of soft libertarianism?
AMERICA. We are free to do most things, but not everything. That comes down to what we decide is the right thing to do through our representatives. It isn't always perfect, but then we aren't tied to a single ideology.
I find it hard to believe anything about our federal government is libertarian.
You don't think we have liberties? Of course it isn't full-blown libertarianism, but that's as an unworkable system as Marxism. While Marxists believe that we should work for the good of all, they forget that many people will slack off, if personal rewards are not forthcoming. Libertarians, on the other hand, believe that leaving people alone to make their own decisions will lead to greater prosperity, forgetting that without limits some of the rich and powerful will take advantage of the less powerful, creating even more of a wealth disparity than we have today. Both philosophies turn a blind eye to human nature, IMO.
 
Yes we live under a soft Fascism, but somehow most Americans are completely unaware of this. Amazingly and even stupidly, many Americans think their central government protects them from harm.
But we also live under soft socialism and soft libertarianism. IMO, that's the way it should be. Take the best parts and discard the rest. Don't tie yourself to a specific ideology.
Can you give me an example of soft libertarianism?
AMERICA. We are free to do most things, but not everything. That comes down to what we decide is the right thing to do through our representatives. It isn't always perfect, but then we aren't tied to a single ideology.
I find it hard to believe anything about our federal government is libertarian.
You don't think we have liberties? Of course it isn't full-blown libertarianism, but that's as an unworkable system as Marxism. While Marxists believe that we should work for the good of all, they forget that many people will slack off, if personal rewards are not forthcoming. Libertarians, on the other hand, believe that leaving people alone to make their own decisions will lead to greater prosperity, forgetting that without limits some of the rich and powerful will take advantage of the less powerful, creating even more of a wealth disparity than we have today. Both philosophies turn a blind eye to human nature, IMO.
No.

Having liberties does not mean we have a libertarian form of government.

Secondly, libertarianism doesn’t mean the rich have no limits and can run roughshod over the people. We have THAT now. This is a common misunderstanding. One that seems to be promoted by statists.
 
What I am trying to suggest is that we have different ideas how a state should be run. Why not try many of those ideas and make sure that somebody, say the owners of those states, benefit or lose money based on how well those ideas work in practice.

I make another thread about this

CDZ - Why can't we have start up in politics?
 
I think such privatized state should be small and still be subject to laws of higher state. At least, in the beginning it should be very regulated.

So the local governments cannot, for example, raise tax arbitrarily without giving those who don't like it a time to get the hell out. Otherwise they will lost protection from the big government.

Well, to be honest with you. Ancap is like extreme libertarians. I am far more centrist than most libertarians. As you see, I don't even know the name of my ideology.

I like EIC and VOC because of it's success. I want something far more benign.

In fact, I can see some benefit of conservatism. Why change too many laws? Libertarians want a very different society where government is minimal. No. Keep most of the laws.

Just "experiment" with the broken one. Legalize weed, for example is a step. Another may decide that sugar relationship is better than marriage.

And the libtard? Redistribution of wealth is not totally false. Just don't keep breeding welfare parasites. Citizens that vote for better governments, like Americans and Singaporean deserve higher standard of living than citizens in Afganistan.

Most libertarians think in terms of right and wrong. What for? You think tax is wrong. Then what? Wrong according to you, right according to many.

Humans are profit seeking anyway. We can tell all of our logic of morality, at the end, we think something is right because we're profited by it. It's just real politic.

If libertarianism is so practical, why there is no libertarian countries in the world?

May be it isn't practical or ideal. May be there are roles for governments. May be governments should build road. May be it shouldn't. May be some wants to ban pork and have loud prayer calling. May be more disagree. Why do we have to ensure that all places governed the same way?

Let each method tried, and see which one works. It's already done. Most countries do it differently. US Federal government is almost like what I want. Different states have different rules. It's working. The globe is good enough.

The question is what counts as "works". I just think that the market mechanism that works so well on normal relationship, will works well too in government.

Under current system, where is your right to smoke weed? You said you have right? You said the rest are wrong. Okay fine. Where is your right?

If states compete with one another, you will have that right. Why? Because if one state prohibits it, you move to another state. Is that a good idea to legalize weed? Let some cities experiment and see if they get more tax revenue and be more prosper than cities that don't.

What about if some cities experiment legalizing weed, xtc, and then the experiment went well? What about if by legalizing weed, the cities have more money to capture and jail real criminals like thieves burglars and robbers? What about if people are safe on those cities?

Then many would want to live in such cities. Just like many would want to live in western world right?

I think whoever make decisions to legalize weed need to be rewarded, if and only if, the decisions really works.

On the other hand, if it fails, whoever make that bad decisions should suffer. That's why I think cities need "owners". I don't think they should suffer death or anything. Well, voters do die under democracy. Just look at venezuella.

However, if a city decides to ban pork, for example, or have laws against blasphemies, or practice too much socialism. The one that should suffer are those making decisions for those cities, namely the owners. Not just the voters that can just move somewhere else.

Notice decisions that's good for certain tax payers may not be god for another. Banning Pork is awesome in a region where most tax payers are muslims. Banning mosque is fine in a region filled with islamophobe. Insisting that those who want to ban pork and those who want to ban mosque and draw Muhammad cartoon to live side by side is insane.
 
The problem with private company's, the bottom line for them is profit. if the cheapest way to dispose with there trash is to throw it in the nearest river that is what many will do. if you can make more profit from having the smallest work force do the most labor for the least pay, least safety rules that is what many will do. that's why we have laws to protect us from unfair advantages taken by those with both money & power. money & power have always had more advantages than the rest of us. now its gotten out of control, as they turn us against each other.
 
Some says this is ancap.

Unlike Ancap I do not advocate that rulers are eliminated. In fact this is so moderate most laws won't even change. Only controversial laws like drugs laws are "experimented".

Some with stricter penalty, some with less penalty. Basically allow states to experiment.

It's almost like federal governments. Except that states in US have voters. I advocate turning voters into share holders. Very little change. It'll be much better for most. Pareto optimal.
 

Forum List

Back
Top