Everyday we are playing a game where we are encouraged to play a min-max style, and so libertarians are often wrong when they say, “If you don’t like X, then stop doing it, but don’t tell me I can’t.” My stopping won’t stop others from doing it. It won’t prevent the tragedy of the commons, or a death of viable playing styles as everyone min-maxes!
A case in point is veganism, which I might rather easily embrace if everyone did it. We could save a lot of money if we stopped subsidizing the price of steak and water to provide for those cattle, since growing plants for food is much more energy efficient. In effect, as we shovel subsidize corn into cows, vegans must subsidize the non-vegans. But why should I deprive myself?
Or for another example, why should I bike to work, buy more expensive food products, and so forth if only I am doing it? There is such a premium on being moral! It’s sad when more ethical behavior is only an easy option for the rich!
That’s why some of us want to be socialists. We’d rather enforce laws that apply what we consider “ethical” on everyone who can affect us. When done right, it works, and the problems such as exemptions for the rich fall away. You might think it’s authoritarian right? Well, socialism isn’t incompatible with you being one of the voters putting things on the ballot. It’s only “authoritarian” if you don’t like the laws, but there are times when only law can drive change, and when a population of people acting in their own interest must create laws to protect themselves from being victimized or disadvantaged if they act according to a moral compass, even if most everyone wants to follow that same moral compass. I’m just rambling about the tragedy of the commons.
Really, we need laws and enforcement to make the game fair sometimes. Both the losers and the winners often try to make laws to protect their interests. If you believe in reducing income inequality, or anything progressive, it’s natural to want to change the law so the winners aren’t already predetermined at the start of the race.
One thing I want to research is the Great Compression. What is the cause of income inequality shrinking in America from the 50s until the 1980s, when it ballooned under Regans deregulation? Why don’t we talk about the policies that worked during that Era today? This chart is the smoking gun that ought to blow Wall Street deregulation pundits out of the water.
Not nearly enough talking is done about that; most Americans don’t know about it. Really, Richard Dawkins and I have had the same idea – certain people really shouldn’t vote. But if they do vote, maybe there should be some kind of multiplier so that more educated/competent voters are worth much more. Voting in ignorance or on emotion is like driving while drunk. — and when you go to vote, it’s not like eating a greasy hamburger that only will make you unhealthy, because your vote will affects others and their liberties. The glorification of the vote — of having people vote according to their tastes and preferences isn’t a good thing!
A bit of elitism would fix so much! If you graduated from college your vote is worth 1.5 times more. If you got a PHD, it should be worth 3 times more. (Under this reasoning more rational people would quickly have a lot more power!)
Ah, of course there are objections to this, but this is a rough draft I’m still exploring.I’ll point out that the senate system and winner takes all policies that allow lobbying in a limited number of crucial states almost exclusively (at the expense of the rest of the country), is the present system, and it is not a “one man one vote system.” In effect someone in Wyoming has like 50 times the votes of someone in Texas, due to the importance of the Senate.
I really do think it’s been proven that most people aren’t qualified to vote anymore. People who don’t understand complicated things like economics are voting….they watch Rick Perry ads and consider making him the nominee because he 1) brags about being a Christian 2) wants to repress the gay “other.” Then these people vote in Trump. And they vote in a pure Republican congress just because they are supporting Trump, just by association, thereby allowing Republicans to control 3 branches of government and destroy any hope of checks and balances.
Hell, the liberal law schools and lawyers have been struggling with the effect of having a Conservative Supreme Court majority for 40 years, it’s such a shame. I’ve always hoped that the Judicial branch would be the elite group that sees further than the rest when everything fails, but the partisan appointments, and conservative leanings of the court (especially as they age and refuse to retire), are making me dislike them more and more. How much better it would be if younger lawyers would expand consumer protection law like they did in the 70’s (rather than gutting it under conservatives), and if law were an active, exciting area of debate again!
It’s amazing that this is the future they the people have choose. Maybe Republicans shouldn’t be allowed to vote! (And a smaller percentage of liberals.) Of course, the Democratic party isn’t liberal, it’s centrist, but Republicans are laughably wrong on so many issues, that it’s not even worth considering their position 8 times out of 10, until a hypothetical future date when they flip and become the new liberal party like they flipped in the civil rights era.