Unintended Consequences: Swiss Edition

[Steve Ballmer]

Running away from the debate, are you?

[Steve Ballmer]

"Just as much central planning as now"
"As little central planning as possible"

So you're saying that currently there's as little central planning as possible, which in turn implies that there was never any less central planning than today. Based on this, one could postulate that you are a nincompoop.

[Steve Ballmer]

Does everything contain a contradiction? Why yes it does.

Just so long as we agree that you're inconsistent.

[lowshelf]

Does everything contain a contradiction? Why yes it does. An atom contains a proton and an electron. Vertical consists of up and down. Life comprises birth and death.

I liked that, cheers!

[Steve Ballmer]

And this is why it's ok for you to contradict yourself? Because spiral?

[docprosper]

But at the end of the day it's mainly gonna be speculation

This. Funks, I admit to not finding the society you're dreaming of to be enticing at all, but regardless of that opinion the bottom line is that you can't get there from here - you have no plan and certainly couldn't force the removal of money and property without bloodshed. Saying "evetually money would cease to be needed" (paraphrased) is very different from drawing up a plan to eliminate it. Same goes for property. And government. How do you (fairly) deal with criminals once there is no government? Who polices the society, or in it completely clensed of vice? Do you have any examples of societies that fit the model of what you promote as ideal?

Marxists do not fall into the trap of [...] thinking.

and that.

[H20nly]

besides what docprosper posted above...

funken... what about the human factor? i like your plan, it's a great thing to wish for... but that's it. the reality is that corruption will set in. it always does. by the time the third generation arrives on the scene, and only know of what their elders fought for from books and stories, corruption will be in full swing... but even before that generation rises, opportunistic people with their own self interests taking precedence will begin hording... something... right away.

greed is ingrained in humanity, if not greed then hording. if a grand plan could remove it, religion would have provided it by now - since that was the idea in the first place. most all of the prophets of the major religions teach some form of ethics, morality, and greater consciousness. yet we all know that the proponents of said religion tend to find the loopholes or just ignore the parts of message they don't care for. such is the way of man.

[Machinesworking]

That's exactly why that although on a superficial level I like both Funkens and Balmers visions of the world, one without corruption, I don't buy into either. Neither Balmer nor Funken have any grand new plans on how to deal with corruption in their utopian views of society.

To me anyway, it's the essential problem with most governments to date, that corruption ruins an ideal. A democratic capitalism would IMO be the ideal if people weren't corrupt, if lobbyists and special interest groups didn't rig the whole system. I see no way for that to be curbed in either a socialism with strong central planning and high ideals, or in a Laissez-faire system. In both scenarios the power vacuum demands to be filled. Laws against such things are hindered in a centralized government by nepotism and in a tiny government system by lack of funds, making bribery a solid lifestyle choice.

In almost every way what either of you have been proposing sounds like a much more easily corrupted system than what we live under now, and neither of you have proposed any new way to deal with corporate or state crime.

[Steve Ballmer]

Well I did propose that we abolish the state and thus all corporations, but don't let what I actually write get in the way of a good post.

[Machinesworking]

Well I did propose that we abolish the state and thus all corporations, but don't let what I actually write get in the way of a good post.

How exactly do you plan on implementing this? Essentially you've been proposing a total free market policy, yet you propose absolutely no way to ensure this policy is actually carried out. It's like saying, "we're getting rid of police, yet we think it's a good idea to keep the law about not stealing. That seems like a good one."
To me this is just as absurd as handing all power to a central committee and expecting the good old boy network we see now not to reemerge. What exactly do you think is going to stop a company from ass raping say Central America, then popping back up in Texas with an awesome cheap product to sell? I mean we're also talking about getting rid of most taxes right? so where is the police system that would track such transgressions? I see no planning against corruption in either of your idealistic scenarios, and no, I don't think you can magically make BP, Exxon, not corporations by eliminating their ability to manipulate governments, all that does IMO is give them the overhead to prop up an add campaign designed to obfuscate the viewer into ignoring the Central American ass raping that said company just did.

It's not much better now, but I cannot see any way it would be better with what you propose, and certainly what with vast swaths of land privately owned as it is, we would see even more Chernobyl's. It's not like businessmen make less mistakes than congressmen, especially when there's a bottom line.

[Steve Ballmer]

How exactly do you plan on implementing this? Essentially you've been proposing a total free market policy, yet you propose absolutely no way to ensure this policy is actually carried out. It's like saying, "we're getting rid of police, yet we think it's a good idea to keep the law about not stealing. That seems like a good one."
To me this is just as absurd as handing all power to a central committee and expecting the good old boy network we see now not to reemerge. What exactly do you think is going to stop a company from ass raping say Central America, then popping back up in Texas with an awesome cheap product to sell? I mean we're also talking about getting rid of most taxes right? so where is the police system that would track such transgressions? I see no planning against corruption in either of your idealistic scenarios, and no, I don't think you can magically make BP, Exxon, not corporations by eliminating their ability to manipulate governments, all that does IMO is give them the overhead to prop up an add campaign designed to obfuscate the viewer into ignoring the Central American ass raping that said company just did.

It's not much better now, but I cannot see any way it would be better with what you propose, and certainly what with vast swaths of land privately owned as it is, we would see even more Chernobyl's. It's not like businessmen make less mistakes than congressmen, especially when there's a bottom line.

First off, it's not a policy. I'm not talking about centrally planning an absence of central planning. I'm not Funk N.

Second of all, my one and only argument so far has been that from an economic perspective, less government, i.e. less central planning, leads to an increase in prosperity. This raises two questions:

1. How do we decrease the size and scope of the government?
2. How far can we take this? Is it really possible to remove the government altogether?

The answer to the first is simple enough. Stop voting for big-government twats, like Obama, Cameron, Merkel, Hollande, etc. and start voting for small-government proponents like Ron Paul, Nigel Farage, etc. If you're living in a direct democracy, where you have the ability to vote on most policy, or call for a referendum if you can amass enough signatures, then systematically vote down changes to the law that expand government, and vote for changes to the law that contract government. This is easy, and unlike Marxism, doesn't involve mass-murder.

The second question is far trickier, and many libertarians would only go so far as to call for minarchy, rather than full-blown nonarchy (Rothbard's word, not mine). Libertarians tend to score higher on IQ tests than your typical liberals and conservatives, and this poses a fairly unique problem: They assume that everybody is as smart and capable as they are, whereas nothing could be further from the truth. The great majority of people are natural born followers, and as Scotty has been all too eager to demonstrate, don't give two fucks about freedom or prosperity. Because of this, I'd argue that the minarchists are probably the saner of the two clans—a TINY-AS-FUCK government could help maintain the illusion that someone's in charge, whilst doing nothing more than maintaining law and order, if even that.

Incidentally, this is actually what the American constitution was originally intended to achieve. However, it's only value today is as a historical document.

By the way, don't use Chernobyl as an example of the dangers of free-marketism. The Chernobyl disaster was caused by one of the most tyrannical governments in history. If anything, you should be using it as an argument for free-marketism.

[Steve Ballmer]

At the beginning of 1960s it became clear Soviet industry was not able to design and launch a decent car for the masses. Soviet leadership again turned to the West seeking technical assistance (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automoti ... viet_Union).

Central planning doesn't produce shit.

[Machinesworking]

By the way, don't use Chernobyl as an example of the dangers of free-marketism. The Chernobyl disaster was caused by one of the most tyrannical governments in history. If anything, you should be using it as an argument for free-marketism.

Meh, I could have as easily mentioned Three Mile Island, th rolling blackouts in California caused by Enron to increase the price of electricity, the for profit privately owned prison system in the USA that lobbies for more and more draconian laws and sentencing using scare tactics to increase their "cliental", The lack of any sort of safety measures in bridge building until recently that gives a death count to every bridge built in the USA before the turn of the century. The simple fact that companies work on for profit basis with no regards to human rights abuses when setting up shops in the third world; in fact the opposite seems to be the rule, a country that has a desperate and enslaved population with zero environmental control is regarded as prime real estate for a factory. A smaller less intrusive government somehow manages to do what to prevent or curb this?

It really doesn't seem like rocket science to me, governments in a democracy are beholden to the general public as well as to special interest groups. It's not the best protection against corruption there is, but it's far better than what you or Funken propose. I'm going to continue to vote for "big bloated" government when it comes to public works like roads, general education, damns, electricity, water, and prisons. I think one of the biggest failures of democracy in modern times has been the privation of the US prison system, probably the last thing you want to see done on a for profit basis.

[Steve Ballmer]

The simple fact that companies work on for profit basis with no regards to human rights abuses when setting up shops in the third world; in fact the opposite seems to be the rule, a country that has a desperate and enslaved population with zero environmental control is regarded as prime real estate for a factory. A smaller less intrusive government somehow manages to do what to prevent or curb this?

The simple fact is, if it were not for those industries many of those people wouldn't have jobs. You can't go from eating dirt to owning a second house over night. If you ever want to see those countries develop, you'd better hope that big companies be permitted to keep on doing what they're doing—creating wealth in the 3rd world.

Also, the reason that companies set up production in the 3rd world in the first place is because of government mandated minimum wages and high taxes in the 1st world. Do away with those, as is part of my "plan" (?), and you'll see a lot less 3rd world "exploitation". Lolz.

When y'all understand the basic cause-and-effect relation between policy and reality, everything becomes so much simpler.

[Machinesworking]

Also, the reason that companies set up production in the 3rd world in the first place is because of government mandated minimum wages and high taxes in the 1st world. Do away with those, as is part of my "plan" (?), and you'll see a lot less 3rd world "exploitation". Lolz.

When y'all understand the basic cause-and-effect relation between policy and reality, everything becomes so much simpler.

Yeah, shitty governments with no respect for their citizens or the environment have it right, that makes sense. Do you really think the USA or Switzerland or any first world nation is going to be OK with working for under the minimum wage, next to rivers were waste from production was dumped?

The cause and effect is there, but your solution is ridiculous. The cause is a lack of ethics on our part. The solution is not to lower our own standards, the solution is to raise them. Though I believe that like all changes made by society that are done to prevent disasters from happening, we have to suffer to the brink of total disaster before doing anything. So whether or not you're thinking it's caused by government intervention or Funken thinks it's by corporations etc. doesn't matter, we have to see the first world fall apart as the rest of the world catches up in their economies, then we might see some changes that make sense.

If you wanted to reduce taxes in the USA anyway the most obvious place is in the military budget, considering it's half and well more than half if you factor in other expenses not counted but obviously linked. We exist on a war time economy though, and we're addicted to it. A far bigger problem than minimum wages and environmental laws.