so you're saying that because America is more capitalistic, that leads to more corruption??
i mean i agree with you, Scandinavian has less corruption, but it also the government of Scandinavian countries spends less %GDP than the us currently.
No, I never said anything about corruption, you're the one that brought it up and made the claim that there's a causal effect between economic systems and government corruption. I'm under the impression that anyone in a separated state of rule is subject to corruption no matter what form of economy there is. That being said, I see less corruption in socialist countries than I do in capitalistic ones, and I wasn't even talking about the government, but thank you for providing the statistics to show that there is also less government corruption. I meant corruption on the social level, it's much easier to corrupt the capitalist system than it is the socialist one because the capitalist system is based upon the very idea of having a select few on the top and the rest of the populous at the bottom (remember this comes from serfdom where 95% of the populous was farmers).
About your GDP quip, sure they have a lower GDP, but if you run the numbers of their overall GDP to their populous, you'll see that it's about proportionate to Americas. After considering that, it's also important to note that the Scandinavian countries have a higher GDP Per Capita
than America, giving me another reason to think that socialism is a more fair economic system because people in socialist countries literally have been treated more fairly, economically speaking.
oh i agree with you government control trade; what i said was there's no way to control trade in a fair and balanced way such that everyone is better off. explain to me how you would control trade in such a manner and I'll show you someone on the losing end of that deal within the country itself.
Alright. I think this was already sort-of outlined so I'll expand a little on it; this system would entail a government that provides and controls goods and services for specific industries like utilities and health care etc. but that is the limitation of it's control - those initial institutions setup to cover the basic human needs for survival and posterity. Any separate company is allowed to be started by citizens in any of the industries or fields that the government already provides for and their is even a hope that the citizen ran institutions can do a better job than the government-ran ones, but the key difference is that the government-controlled institutions are provided "free-of-charge" to citizens, granted they are paying taxes for these institutions but if you have read the stuff in the Online Nation thread you may know that citizens have options for what they pay taxes on and they may chose to not support one institution over another.
That being said, the other aspect of this system is the fundamental monetary control, outside of trade regulation. A system of crediting exists, meaning credit units essentially replace old currency, but because it is credit, you don't have to pay right away. This allows for slightly more elasticity in what freedom you have as a consumer, but only slightly as eventually you will not be allowed to spend more non-existent credit (you got throttled). I have not come up with a way so far to be able to allow all users of this system to maintain positive credit at all times, but I think that's the point - if you chose to spend it all, you chose to spend it all. The major major difference here is that in this sudo-socialist system of crediting, when your credits run out, your life does not. Farmers that are signed on to work for the government (the government has no say in what they farm btw) are subsidized by the government to pay for the farmer's salaries and the food is provided in markets and grocers like normal, but available for free if you want a government meal-plan (which I will find a better name for). You basically get a certain amount of food allowed per month on a meal plan (the way it's calculated and measured should be proportional to how many people are on the plan, so every person with a plan should be getting more than enough food). If you don't want to obtain the free food and want to purchase commercially grown and provided food instead, you are free to do so, or you can do a bit of both, it doesn't matter, the food is being grown and provided either way, the difference is that some of it is safety-net food that will always be there even if you have no money. The same goes to drinkable water for the public, majority-uptime electrical provisions to all major areas of power-use, health care, etc. Yes there will be heavy taxes to account for all these programs and institutions, however the taxes can never exceed 40% of your income which means you are left with 60% of your income for leisure and entertainment and other consumer/business related investments.
I can see arguments for 40% being too low in this scenario because 40% may not be enough to provide for every single "necessary" aspect of life, and depending on how convincing those arguments may be, I may be persuaded to augment the maximum tax amount to 60% and leave 40% for leisure, HOWEVER, that will only be after those arguments show that Proportional & Elastic Internal Crediting can not accurately control the value of a single credit to the point where substantial inflation or substantial deflation occur and the government system would need extra "money" (credit, but at the point you'd be buying credit from your citizens and that sounds absurd) from the citizens. I realized I used a term there that only sudo-exists because no systems currently use it, but in the Online Nation system, the government can create and destroy credit at will to algorithmically account for inflation and deflation, keeping the average credit value to that of 10k credits per citizen (so it stays proportional), making the raw numbers of the economy inflate proportionately to the number of citizens, but making the value of a credit grow proportionately to the inflation of world currencies (physical currencies too).
That was a little tl;dr, I apologize, but I hope that explained a bit and I look forward to see your handling of perceived problems with the system.
i assure you such measures hurt more than they help.
"... deregulated markets in rich Western countries have been much more effective at providing for the material needs of individuals."
All I'm seeing is what comparative political scientists have been saying for a while, which is that closed trade is better for developing countries and free trade is better for industrialized countries. America is a post-industrial country and free trade is starting to fail us (but just starting, empire power is a bell curve after all). Post-industrial countries that are "first world" (in case that distinction even needed to be made, sorry) have only existed in very recent history and so far tend to economically favor socialist-esk economic systems, as shown by a few European countries (I shouldn't keep saying Scandinavia because they aren't the only ones to do it, Canada has a lot of good socialist policies too). But let's say I'm wrong, or really that comparative political theory is wrong, which it may be, a government cutting off trade for specific industries
has the intrinsic effect of boosting that specific industry internally because the country HAS to provide said good/service on its own and thus a large market for said industry opens up within that country. This may hurt the country initially, but it helps in the long run (posterity is key when building a state).
again i agree, and again I'd like to point out they spend less %GDP on government than every other country.
This is a little different than what you said before. I've never heard about this. I also don't believe it. They certainly don't spend it on military (maybe Finland but not Sweden) so they must be spending it on something. If the government isn't spending a large amount of its money on itself or its institutions, then what is it being spent on?
um. no. freedoms are not provided by the government. we don't derive our freedoms from the ruling class, they are inherit within every human being. even a slave can say **** the government even if it means a whipping.
False, you don't derive freedom at all, freedom is not a philosophical concept that isn't always directly physically applicable. You're thinking of liberties. You derive liberties and you are inherently born with liberties. You are at liberty to resist power, but you probably don't have the freedom to, considering they
are the power. Freedom is based around powers and what you are allowed to do in the physical world on an action-by-action basis. Liberty is where you can get meta with it. And even further, liberties are where you derive citizen rights, but no citizen is free to do anything a higher power dictates against. You're arguing that sure you may still do it
, but you weren't free to do it
, and thus you have acted unjustly to the state. The fact that you said slave in your example should point out another flaw with your concept of being "free".
um. no. i know how to control corruption in a capitalist system. boycott, strike, insurance against malfeasance, dispute resolution organizations.
government tends to stifle all of these things. lets say government was the only medical care provider. how would you boycott? with votes? and how would doctors strike? the government has the guns. and how would you insure against malfeasance? and how would you resolve a dispute if a doctor does a bad job?
After reading this last bit I think we're talking about very different government types. The whole time I've been referring to the online government I'm currently structuring, which doesn't have any of the problems you mention in this last quoted bit. I think I covered all of these problems specifically in that block of text in the middle of this post but I'll give a quick re-go at that to help quell your qualms.
You can still boycott, strike, etc. against organizations in this system, and if the boycott/strike/w.e is successful against a government-funded/ran institution in this system, then that institution is destroyed and the other existing citizen-funded/ran organizations and businesses of the same industries win out. Think of this system as like having an extra "company" for any major necessity like healthcare or whatever, and that extra company that competes with citizen companies is government-ran/controlled/w.e, but only that one specific company. The rest of the companies of that industry have fair opportunity to out-do the government-ran company. So if the government company is ****, the citizens don't have to use it. Granted the downside to the citizens is that now they will have to pay for whatever that service was, but that's by their design.
Also, the government does not have the guns. The Online Nation would be a ruler-less government, granted social leaders will still arise from the populous and they might have influence on voting turn-outs for certain matters, but it's all citizen-driven. You might also then have worries about a Coup d'état where the military takes over and says the Online Nation's rules don't apply anymore. I've recently realized that this may be a big problem with a ruler-less society and so to counter-act this I'm thinking that there will not be a standing military force but there will be strong local police forces and strong local swat forces. I have to tackle this issue separately but it is being tackled, so worry not.