"Politics becomes a battleground for control. If you and your allies do not have that control, someone else will, and your fate is in their hands. At the same time, government becomes not only an arena in which cronyist groups of every type fight to use that government for their own ends, the institutions of government also become a source of power, privilege, and wealth for the politicians and bureaucrats who man the halls of government. Those in government have their own interests as well, which they advance by serving those interest groups who wish to eat at the political trough..."

"A growing portion of humanity, including in the United States, seems to have lost sight of this alternative form of social existence. This alternative starts off by conceiving of human beings as individuals rather than as social, racial, or gender collectives. It is the philosophy of individualism that declares that every human being has a right to his own life, his own liberty, and his honestly acquired property. It declares that every individual owns himself. He is not the property of any social collective to which his owes his obedience and his sacrifice if an asserted higher good of the group requires or, indeed, demands it."




https://fee.org/articles/how-capitalism-...the-world/

"...alternative form of social existence."

Alternative, as in in an alternate reality. No real life examples exist.

Politics is also a a battleground to control for the economic interests, and is used as a cudgel by the established economic interests to create vaster and stronger barriers to entry than could ever be derived in the marketplace itself.

And supposed 'red' states are amongst the worst when it comes to political impediments to economic freedoms.

Thanks for the invite to post tanqtonic. I'm familiar with Owl 69/70/75 from the Spin Room as well.

I see politics as the necessary interaction of self-interests in governance to gain position, authority and influence over the use/distribution of scarce resources and political capital. Due to the bureaucratic and institutional nature of government, it is impossible for purely individual liberty to dictate outcomes. In other words, every individual within the political system has personal liberties, freedoms and ideals that they stand for and desire but to gain anything close to this requires forming coalitions, "win-wins" and consensus building. This is where "issue platforms" are used to narrow and frame desired outcomes in politics. Individual liberty gets watered down but IMO that is the trade off for a government system that elects representatives of individuals. I don't know what the alternative is due to our population size and geographic area. Perhaps, it is just keeping the idealism of individual liberty alive for citizens to elect representatives that also share these same ideals.

Couple of comments:

(06-12-2018 11:33 AM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Thanks for the invite to post tanqtonic. I'm familiar with Owl 69/70/75 from the Spin Room as well.

Welcome to the mudpit for geeks....

Quote:I see politics as the necessary interaction of self-interests in governance to gain position, authority and influence over the use/distribution of scarce resources and political capital.

But using 'politics' to be the 'mechanism' for 'political capital' is somewhat circular. The case can be made that 'political capital' *is* the direct result of politics.

Quote:Individual liberty gets watered down but IMO that is the trade off for a government system that elects representatives of individuals.

I cant think of any organized form of governance in which individual liberties *dont* get watered down. The purest form of 'individual liberties' is anarchism -- the antithesis of any form of organized governance. I would say that different forms of governance directly impact the levels of individual liberties in a major way.

----------

Turning back to the original post -- the best path would be a political framework where the concentration of power doesnt enhance the 'feeding at the trough'. But the definition of the ability to form self-governance of *groups* of people tend to mandate that concentration; thus the 'feeding from the trough' can never be minimized or abrograted.

----

Side joke: In law school I formed the "Lawyers for Anarchy" club (for the best of causes, of course -- I was much younger and far more prone to do the 'cause' thing to get a response).

The dean of student affairs got the gist immediately and had a good laugh when he signed the 'existence papers'. He also commented that to be true to the cause, the club should die a true death in 6 weeks, since by definition we would not be able to supply the requisite information about club leadership.

I got another hearty laugh when I responded that that outcome of an official death in the eyes of the law school was completely dependent on whether we recognized the authority on the death, and if we did, the club should die as a matter of course.

But the responses we got to the posting of meetings and the t-shirts was priceless. Only abut 20 per cent saw the amazing gap between 'lawyers' and 'anarchy', unfortunately.

(06-12-2018 12:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 11:33 AM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  I see politics as the necessary interaction of self-interests in governance to gain position, authority and influence over the use/distribution of scarce resources and political capital.

But using 'politics' to be the 'mechanism' for 'political capital' is somewhat circular. The case can be made that 'political capital' *is* the direct result of politics.

I agree in part but I was thinking more about the level or the degree to which capital is gained or lost. For example, my ability to work within the framework of politics (the interplay/interaction between many variables) will determine how much support I can gain for my cause, idea, legislation, etc. It may require modifications based on others in order for it to advance forward. There will always be a result but it may not be the fully desired end.

(06-12-2018 12:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 11:33 AM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Individual liberty gets watered down but IMO that is the trade off for a government system that elects representatives of individuals.

I cant think of any organized form of governance in which individual liberties *dont* get watered down. The purest form of 'individual liberties' is anarchism -- the antithesis of any form of organized governance. I would say that different forms of governance directly impact the levels of individual liberties in a major way.

But isn't anarchism typically a collective effort? It would seem anarchists are organized, strategic groups that select pre-determined locations, dates and times to riot or to promote anarchy. Is a lone terrorist, mass shooter or serial killer the purest form of individual liberty? They are imposing their will and desires directly upon someone else without regard to the recipient(s).

(06-12-2018 12:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Turning back to the original post -- the best path would be a political framework where the concentration of power doesnt enhance the 'feeding at the trough'. But the definition of the ability to form self-governance of *groups* of people tend to mandate that concentration; thus the 'feeding from the trough' can never be minimized or abrograted.

Thus, the system/institutionalization/processes of governance are too set and established over time for any real change without a revolution type of event (which we've seen throughout history of course). Rather, as I previously posted, it is best hoped to influence politics with representatives elected by the people sharing similar ideologies and platforms.