1 - 9
In response to:

Favors and Loot for Sale

MadisonLives Wrote: Sep 10, 2014 3:04 AM
Yes, but a cap alone isn't politically viable. Cap-and-prioritize, however (see my post above) would combine the cap you propose with a way to sell the cap to the moderates and the left.
In response to:

Favors and Loot for Sale

MadisonLives Wrote: Sep 10, 2014 3:02 AM
Any solution needs to appeal to voters on both sides or it wont be viable nor sustainable. From my 7 years of research on this, the only possible solution is "cap and prioritize". Step 1 is to cap government like the right would like (e.g. a population + inflation cap) so government grows slower than our economy on average while maintaining purchasing power per-person. Step 2 is to take the money that's left and prioritize it -- rank it from top to bottom. This could be done in social-spending by block-granting that money to the states, creating 50 different experiments for how best to prioritize. Such a structure would constantly improve the effectiveness of social spending (as re-prioritizing would find better and better ways to use that constant purchasing power) while the tax burden -- and the money in politics -- would constantly shrink. Cap-and-prioritize. You heard it here first.
The truth is, we are *all* brainwashed -- each in our own particular way... Studies have shown that we humans are actually quite willing to be persuaded by logic UNTIL that logic forces us to change our identity... that's when we resist. We all do this... christians, athiests, progressives, conservatives, moderates, etc. The good news is that REALITY ALWAYS WINS EVENTUALLY -- so even though we all disagree, society as a whole tends to bounce towards truth.
In response to:

Here Comes Tomorrow

MadisonLives Wrote: Jun 18, 2014 5:30 AM
The singularity is coming and it will be different than all previous eras of advancement in that past eras augmented humans but this time smarter-than-human machines will actually replace humans. The bottom line is this: post singularity all biological humans will be on the receiving side of social justice if there is any. It's enough to make a thinking-libertarian think twice about the need for us to solve the social justice problem. My work in philosophy suggests that this *can* be done and that libertarian limits (luckily) are essential to the pursuit of social justice because such limits are required to force ideas in government to compete and it's that competition of ideas that will pursue social justice efficiently and effectively. If you would like to learn more about how libertarian limits and social justice work together, see the TEDx talk at TheSolution.org
In response to:

Parting Company

MadisonLives Wrote: Jan 02, 2014 12:03 AM
What Dr. Williams is missing is the wider implication of what Madison wrote in Federalist 41... That's where Madison said it was "in vain" to put put the constitution in opposition to the natural impulse of national self-defense..."worse than in vain" for doing so would only force the Constitution to be ignore, and every time it get ignored it gets easier and easier to ignore until the Constitution until the Constitution is meaningless. What does this have to do with the kind of constitutional violations Dr. Williams talks about? Well... I'm going to argue that the same logic applies to the natural impulse of pursuing social justice. In other words, by officially outlawing charitable efforts by the federal government, our liberty-minded founding fathers GUARANTEED that factions -- that should be competing -- would, instead, ally together to form a super-faction that has enough power to ignore precisely those limits. The solution is CAP+PRIORITIZE... set sustainable limits, and let ideas compete for those limited funds in the transparency of a prioritized budget. You heard it here first.
In response to:

Our Fragile Planet

MadisonLives Wrote: Dec 11, 2013 1:24 PM
If we hit a tipping point in the environment (such points clearly exist) then it's even worse for the unfortunate! So the pursuit of maximum social justice is not inconsistent with the pursuit of maximum environmental sustainability. Think of it this way: Step 1: Decide what resources we-the-living "own" and what we will leave for future generations. Step 2: Use capitalism to maximize the utility of those resources. Step 3: Use prioritized government spending to pursue equal opportunity (aka social justice) -- this model unites the values of the left, right, center and even the environmentalists
In response to:

Our Fragile Planet

MadisonLives Wrote: Dec 11, 2013 1:14 PM
What Dr. Williams misses is that just before a tipping point, things look great. Humanity may not have yet produced enough damage to the environment to equal already occurring natural disasters but wisdom often means being conservative... and conservative, in this case, is erring on the side of caution. Dr. Williams is a big fan of "fiscal sustainability"... how is "environmental sustainability" any different? And to all the fans of environmental sustainability, why the heck can't you understand the need for fiscal sustainability? We should all be on the same side...
Cal -- I agree we should stop blaming politicians and political parties because they are only doing what they are incentivized to do... but by that logic we should not blame we the voters either because we are also just doing (largely) what we are incentivized to do. The solution, therefore, is INCENTIVE REFORM. Check out http://IncentiveReform.org
Charles41 -- the solution is incentive reform: http://IncentiveReform.org
1 - 9