} Sure i just meant to point out that a rational combination of the two could
} work better than either one on its own. Leaving some minimalized state-like
} instrument alive if you will, for those cases where the free market does
} fail. Some sort of guarantee rather than depending on a chance . But then
Yes, this might be ideal. Key word: 'ideal'. What will actually
happen? History and theory suggest that a small government will try
to turn into a big government. The US Constitution wasn't that bad, but
we've drifted out of it. Maybe it needed bigger letters. "AND CONGRESS
HAS ONLY THESE POWERS WE MEAN IT."
} Its a wonderful system, yet it's not without flaws.
Well, la. The unflawed system is one where everyone does what I want,
as John Clark says. Unflawed for me, that is. Alas, you all seem to
have other plans. Thesis: a universe with finite access to resoures and
more than one independent actor cannot reach political utopia.
} Moderate 'social' measures have their function. They are to protect the
} part of the population that lies between that 75% and the top 0.0001% from
Moderate social measures have a history of multiplying beyond the
necessary. Tradeoffs. Theory says they're not worth it, at least as
far as efficiency goes.
} less bureaucratic and with a much less influencial state. BUT: With a swift
} and sure instrument left intact to act ONLY in crisis situations, with a
} rapid concentration of power and resources the scope of that which the
} Roman consuls had.
Alas, who gets to define the crisis? I do have an attraction to the
Roman system, though, I don't know why. The oddities of having 2
consuls, as well as tribunes with veto powers, perhaps. Also the fact
that they had one-year terms. Perhaps such a system wouldn't be so bad.
} am i a democratic semi-anarcho/monarcho-capitalist ?
monarcho or minarcho?
Merry part,
-xx- Damien R. Sullivan X-) <*> http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix
Paranoia is what the lazy call wisdom.
(Doh. Now I know why this confuses people -- English syntax actually
seems ambiguous. What I mean is that lazy people refer to wise
self-defense as paranoia. But now I'm not sure whether the line says
that, or whether it's saying the lazy refer to paranoia as wisdom, which
would be confusing. Help?)