posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:31 PM
I am 24. My political-economic belief system was republic-capitalist in nature up until being a junior in college. I can now be most accurately
described as a republic-socialist ( if one must apply a label ).
If you read the wealth of nations, Jefferson and Paine you come to the conclusion that the state should have never created the indefinite corporate
entity and that aristocracy was meant to be prevented at all costs. The wealth of nations pens capitalism in the light of many small
businesses/craftsmen all competing. That has been lost. The current system is set up so the many become the few, mostly through acquisitions, but
sometimes through patent lawsuits (as in my industry)...
Contemporary wealth during Paine and Jefferson's time was held in land. It is with little surprise that Paine recommended dividing up land among the
people so as to begin on an equal playing field. Jefferson many times references aristocracy as the death of democracy. However, I have lost respect
for him in his eventual acceptance to slavery, remarking on his 7% return on slaves as a profiting venture. Paine's hands are clean.
In the view that everyone should start on an equal playing field, I am in agreement with Paine. There can simply be no democracy when the wealthy
retain that wealth through generations, quite possibly leading to being ruled over by a fool. If you need to see that reality, remember Bush (or James
Taggart for you AS fans). Implicitly, this means a very large estate tax if not 100%. with exclusions for the widow/er. If any one person is the best
for a job, they will get it on merit alone, not because they had better education or a shoe-in because of their last name.
The biggest problem with our current form of government and economy is it does not heed reality. The governmental committee on science is filled with
people who reference the bible in their decisions instead of reproducible empirical studies. Since very few of our politicians are scientists but
lawyers, their opinion does not matter, they for some reason decide to not defer to the expert consensus and plow on ahead. Capitalism does this as
well, through externalities. Through the race to the bottom, governments are too happy to oblige. My greatest desire is to be ruled over by a
government that looks at its policies through the scientific method, ever improving to promote the general welfare of its' people.
The second biggest issue is that the capitalist globalized market appears to be woefully inadequate in maximizing human capital, mostly due to paid
access to human knowledge. In my view no one has the right to own or limit this access. All forms of education should be free, with some term of
service (non-military or military, up to the individual) to the government. For those not wanting a higher education, they can enter the work force,
and be paid a living wage similiar to how the French used to pay the difference. An employer would pay the market price for their labor, and the
government would pay the rest so they could live respectable lives. This program was immensily popular and worked well for France until Sarkozy
changed the policy... Hollande has promised to go back to it, but it appears he is unable to do so in the current climate. If the USA went this way,
it would fix many of our woes. Alas this would mean higher taxes, which is now firmly in the dogmatic reasoning of the right as their trickle down
economics has been proven a fraud by a non-partisan research council paper that they blocked in vain.
When your particular field has to fund its own Nobel Prize because it isnt considered a true science, perhaps it is time to become much more humble.
We have not reached the end of history, there is still much to do... hopefully the new economic theory that replaces neo-liberalism does not need to
create dictators like Pinochet to validate itself.
To those that say the world is not fair, tough luck. I cannot and will not share this view. Civilization is a human construct. It is as fair as its
constituents want it to be. The young have the best chance of changing it within their life times, and the old will die off leaving in their wake only
opportunity. "...truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die,
and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." (Max Planck)