Social Libertarianism

I’m not even a socialist, in some ways I prefer the US economy and society, in some ways I prefer the Scandinavian economy and society (which’s still predominantly capitalist), and in others I prefer the Visegrad Group (which’s again still predominantly capitalist), I have tried to synthesize them in my thinking.

That really sux man, should be free.

Would I be correct in thinking that everyone so far is not in favour of Progressivism?

Would then the primary point of dispute be over whether Social Reform is part of Socialism? The OP clearly states they do not think this is the case.

The other half of the OP is in favour of economic reform as distinct from social reform.

Assuming I am correct in thinking that nobody is in favour of social reform, there seems little point in arguing over it. Instead, what do you guys think about economic reform? Is it needed? If it is, when what kind?

That being said, I don’t support this Rosa Lichtenstein, this has nothing to do with me.

She’s anti-free speech and a thug.

I’d like to see a synthesis of rep and direct internet democracy, where the legislative, judicial and executive branches still existed and could propose bills, but they’d still have to pass through all three branches of government and could be vetoed by the people, likewise the people could propose bills with sufficient backing by the people (like say 10000 supporters), but they’d have to pass through all three branches of government and could be vetoed by the people.
Of course internet democracy is dangerous because there’s no paper trail.
I think we should still elect representatives, including those who administer the internet democracy by paper, while voting for bills online.

well i don’t know about that, but she is straight thuggin’.

if you ever change your mind, marx, rosa and i will be right here waiting for you…

Actually, internet democracy is pretty solid. You just have to make the source code public domain so people can see if it’s been altered. When a person shows their physical registration at a voting center, they walk in and receive a random serial number for that vote, which they can always check.

The problem of anonymous and transparent
voting through internet has been solved

We have the tools to do this

In socialism, there is no democracy.

Last I checked, they had democracy in Fennoscandia, which’s again not to say I like everything about it.
I think about society, government and economics 3 dimensionally.
I’m a nationalist, anti-immigration and a libertarian on social issues.
These positions also factor into who and what I’ll support.

Furthermore, the Nordic model is too corporatist for my liking.
From my understanding, it’s difficult to move up or down the economic ladder in Fennoscandia.
I want to make it easier for the poorest 99% to climb the ladder and the richest 0.1% to fall by eliminating taxes on the 99% and small businesses while increasing taxes on the 0.1% and big business (but of course not beyond what would render them unprofitable) while redistributing the wealth in the form of universal supplementary income (everyone with a legitimate source of income (an aboveboard job or income assistance) will be given an additional 10 grand by government or whatever we can afford).
Minimally regulate small businesses while maximally regulating big.
Increase corporate welfare for small businesses while eliminating it for big.

What I’m proposing is, as far as I know, historically unprecedented.
It would mean a gradual transfer of ownership and management of the economy from the top 0.1% to the bottom 99%.
Of course an overnight transfer would result in economic ruin.

either all that or partly nationalize and unionize or cooperativize all megacorps and run them in the interests of workers and consumers.
I say partly, because of course government and unions or workers won’t be able to run them by themselves, at least not initially.

Really?
I’ll have to look into that.

I’d want a mix of direct and indirect democracy, at least for a while, until the people became more educated about governance.

essentially the Fennoscandinavian model is democratic social corporatism, whereas mine is either proper social democracy or democratic socialism.

From my experience, most people here are lukewarm about or opposed to progressivism.
However, they’re split down the middle about socialism.

In general I think social democrats and democratic socialists could broaden their appeal if they ditched progressivism.
Most white and even some black and brown people don’t like hearing about how whites are bad, we’re not and we don’t owe anyone anything, and we still make up the majority of the Anglosphere, including the majority of voters.
Whatever success the left has had in recent years, it’s been in spite of progressivism, not because of it.

I think it’s by design, the deep state keeps the races, religions and sexes squabbling over scraps to distract us from itself.
They keep the working and middle classes fighting over taxes and wages.
They don’t want us to know it’s possible for government to help both classes simultaneously by going directly after the elite full tilt.

Here’s something like what I think should be done to help the economy:

eliminate immigration, so the working class doesn’t have to compete with immigrants for housing, jobs and social services.
In the 21st century, we no longer need economic or population growth, we need economic justice and sustainability.
While the offspring of skilled immigrants might, immigrants themselves don’t create housing, jobs and social services, they just compete for them.

eliminate offshoring.

Nationalize the central banks.

eliminate corporate welfare.

eliminate the war on drugs, the war on terror and bring all our troops home.

eliminate foreign aid.

Maximally deregulate small businesses while maximally regulating big business.

eliminate the carbon, sales and all taxes except the income tax and the unnecessary bureaucracy that goes along with them, eliminate the income tax on the poorest 99% and maximally increase the income tax on the richest 0.1%.

Nationalize postsecondary education and improve healthcare and public transportation.

Implement what I call universal supplementary income (USI, similar to but not the same as UBI): government gives at least 10 grand annually (or whatever we can afford) to everyone with a legitimate source of income (everyone with an aboveboard job or on income assistance).

so far the plans look good, but when you get into office be prepared to be heckled by economists who are going to worry you to death with their spreadsheets and market predictions and budget analyses and all that shit. that’s the real bitch about governance; a plan looks good… but how well can it predict what will happen when policy x, y, and z are affected.

‘The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.’ - hayek

I’m a big picture guy, I’ll leave the detail and grunt work to my underlings.
But if I like start getting the feeling they’re just trying to protect the elite’s interests, I’ll take a little more than they say I can take and see what happens.
If it works out, I’ll replace them with new underlings, but if it doesn’t, I’ll pull back a bit, and think of other ways to redistribute more.

holy shit… you’re like the platonic guardians, dude. that’s so radical. its like the republic 2.0 version. you’re like an auxiliary; you rule but you let those below you do the ruling until they fuck up and then you put some rule on they ass. but look, you have to also live in a near state of poverty so you won’t ever be tempted to establish legislation that is bias toward keeping your wealth. if you’re broke, then you can’t stack the deck in your favor, see.

okay so here’s a typical problem that will arise in the proceedings of the democratic bodies that determine the value of the labor of the workers who are part of the government. in the absence of natural free market value adjusting (commodities that are popular are more valued), worker syndicates have to agree on the wages allotted for x type of work, since that wage won’t be adjusted and determined by a private owner participating in a free market. now if that’s the case, what’s to stop one or more of these delegates from deciding their job is worth more than the other guy’s job? some pretty serious artificial price fixing might go down, dude. how do you propose this can be prevented?

holds microphone forward

Naw dude, I’m a Platonic form, I can’t be corrupted.

But just in case, I’ll pass some legislation immediately upon taking office barring multimillionaires from running for office, or becoming multimillionaires during or after leaving office.

1stly, social democracy (moderate: big business mostly in private hands, but mostly used for the public good) is my plan A, democratic socialism (radical: the nationalization and syndication or cooperativization of big business) is my plan B if plan A fails.

2ndly, if plan A fails, my job would just be to nationalize and syndicate or cooperativize all megacorps, not decide what each and every employee gets paid in each and every megacorp, that’s up to workers and their representatives to decide.
The main thing is workers and their reps would be deciding it, not capitalists and theirs.

However, capitalism and its chain of command may not be something we can get rid of overnight.
It may have to be phased out over the course of years or decades, as workers and their reps gradually figure out how to manage things themselves.
I would also work with state reps to make sure consumers weren’t being overcharged.

I mean even in plan B we’d still have an essentially free market, the head of state wouldn’t determine what each megacorp produces and pays its employees at gunpoint and in a vacuum.
That’s a communist or totalitarian dictatorship…not what we want at all.
Workers and their reps would determine what to pay each (class of) worker and rep based on the megacorps net income and what they figure each (class of) worker and rep contributed.
Some employees will still make more than others, but it’d be democratically determined, not capitalistically, and so their earnings won’t be as wildly disparate as they are now, with capitalists and ceos making a killing and workers peanuts.

What we have here is 4 entities: workers, their elected managers and reps, the head of state and his or her elected reps.
Neither of these 4 entities should have power over the other, they should have to agree on everything.
If they can’t agree on anything then either nothing gets done, or…you draw straws, but you don’t just start telling people what to do at gunpoint, that’s a recipe for disaster, it’s failed time and time again wherever it was tried.
For the most part corporations can democratically governmen themselves, with the state only intervening sporadically.