-facepalm- Did you even read my message? :) I’m interested in discussing theories or practical data, not in personal attacks or insults.
-facepalm- Also, did you even read my message? :) I take “young and naive” as compliments, because I’m not young, and innocence is a virtue.
-facepalm- And once again, did you even read my message? :) I read the book and what I was explaining about the “constraints” was exactly addressing the main plot of Road to Serfdom. In mathematics, constraints assign boundaries to an algorithm to reach the optimal value. In countries, policies help the country to optimise its synergy-value and prevent tyranny. The question is which constraint to apply. Many countries, mostly in Europe these days, figured this out and are able to utilise their synergy value without ending up in tyranny. Clearly Venezuela or Soviets didn’t. Clearly USA, UK, Turkey, India or anarchist tribes in Africa didn’t figure this out either; even though they’re much closer to libertarianism than socialism. I'm diverging - Hayek's discredited work ignores the constraint element (I'm doing a deduction from mathematics to politics here, if it isn't clear).
Don’t worry though, your precious time isn’t wasted. I’m hoping that you’ll read these, and read more on mathematics (operations research), economic theories (social contract and its relation to economies of scale - maybe start with Habermas, because it’s closer to your view) and study practical data (e.g. Piketty is a good start) and you’ll find the right way too. For the record, I don’t know what to call the right way. It definitely isn’t individualistic, sub-optimal libertarianism. My approach of algorithmic, smart-contracted, synergy-optimising government isn’t adopted much in the world. But if you want a traditional definition, yes, Democratic Socialism would be the closest.
Ok, since we are putting ourselves in boxes I would say I'm kind of a minarchist though eventually I would like to see an anarco capitalist system in place but it's too early for that, you are an example of this, most people are just not prepared for that level if liberty, they are content as statist sheep for as long as the debt bubble doesn't burst and they can more or less live a life of endless slavery watching tv and paying credit cards forever.
Speaking of bubbles, I'm sorry to burst yours but "Democratic Socialism" is an oxymoron. Socialism is based on coercion, you have to impose it on the masses of people with guns and murder by an elite of opportunistic rulers. Every time naive people try to make it work, opportunistic dictators take over the revolution, like the Castros did, and murder or exile the naive like yourself.
It has never worked in history, just like anarcocapitalism (so far, let's hope Roger Ver's island is a success), I have to admit, but minarchism is the best option we have for now.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Every country in the world has a certain amount of socialism. European countries have significant amount of socialist policies, they're much closer to socialism than capitalism and they're more democratic than more capitalist countries, such as USA. On the other side, the populated countries that are closest in the world to your anarcho-capitalism are isolated African tribes or Sentinelese. They're doing alright, huh?
You pulled me to your level! Discussing specific examples is irrational. There are thousands of other variables involved why European countries are more democratic or advanced than isolated tribes. "That they are more social" could be one, but there are many more. I'll go back to theories and actual data.
Anarco-capitalism inherently pushes for full-on privatisation, where each individual's goals are unaligned, which is sub-optimal considering that more than 1 person lives in the world. You'll understand this if you study advanced mathematics a little.
"Socialism is based on coercion". The biggest problem of socialism is that it assumes a trust within societies towards a common goal. It makes an assumption on the Game Theory's outcome. Now, I believe that this assumption is correct OVERALL. Because the whole society should benefit from their commonly created synergy.
But soon, what I think won't matter, because this assumption won't be required. Game Theory's outcome can be maintained via a trustless system! Hmm, I wonder where I heard that before? That's right. Blockchains... A smart contract between all parts of society to achieve a common goal, where the benefit of "coming together" (i.e synergy) is distributed to all society, not only those who have immediate access to that benefit? That's music to socialists' ears.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There's no common goal in socialism dumbass, there's the goals of the dictator, the elite, and the statist sheep who either follow or get shot. You sound like a somewhat smart person, I wonder if you are really this naive or you just want to believe so bad that your judgement is annulled. Anyways, I guess I'm done educating here. I hope you get it someday and it's not in a concentration camp or at the shooting squad for naive dumbasses.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
:) You haven't read one thing about economy other than Hayek, have you? Or mathematics... Or how algorithms work... That'd explain a lot to be honest - both about your judgment and about your choice of words when you're expressing yourself.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit