I would like to know if Kame would advocate a more authoritarian style of government in the US, or at the least political reform which grants more power to the executive?

Your main complaint seems to be that conflicting interest groups in society mean that things are inefficient and nothing gets done. However you also seem to believe strongly in the principle of negative liberty. Is this not somewhat contradictory?

Even Authoritarian has its own list of problems. In order for it to be what I want, it would have to be a very benevolent government. I need you to clarify what you mean by more power to the executive...do you mean more power to the federal government? Because I think the federal government has too much power, and to put it frankly the president is sticking his nose into issues that do no concern him. Why did people turn to Obama for his opinion on a conflict between a professor and a MA policeman? It wasn't any of his business; that is a matter of the state, not the country.

I am not very familiar with the term negative liberty. I looked up the term and read a little about it, but I don't see how it is contrary to my statements on inefficiency. Unless I'm reading this wrong (and I'll admit...I went to wikipedia...) it sounds like negative liberty is freedom to do what you want without interference from other people, which is what I want. This seems to support that conflicting interest groups in society causes progress to occur very slowly.

Maybe what I should say about the current system is this: on a macro (country and international) level, conflict is good. Policy grows/changes/creation occurs slowly, and as I think I mentioned above, in most cases it is pretty hard to not be represented in decisions. (It does still happen, unfortunately, and there is a large portion of our generation who do not want health insurance, they want insurance reform and the choice to buy health care. My boyfriend for example knowingly funds his CRX instead of health insurance, which monthly costs about as much as it would to buy health insurance.) The best case scenario is that top level administration agree with me in every way. I think that is what everyone wants. But that isn't true. So the only way to counteract millions of opinions is to remove as much power as possible from the guy who at the end of the day is going to sign the bill. I've never wanted to know my president's opinion about affairs. There are other tasks on a macro level, sure, such as ensuring public goods are provided for on a national level...defense, highways, etc.

On a micro level (state and personal), decisions should be made centrally and change should occur more rapidly. Less time is needed for representation as less people are being represented. Conflict will arise, sure, and usually the conflict that does come up is going to be much more petty. Ugh. Look at all the screaming at city hall meetings during the 08 elections. It was embarrassing. The decisions made should not impede on decisions made by neighbors and vice versa. Really, the only roll a federal government should have on this level is to mediate if conflict does arise.

I hope that clears things up. It probably didn't, though.

I mean power to the executive branch of whatever system happens to govern. For example, more executive power in the federal government means more power to the president and his secretaries of state. The UK has a strong executive due to the way politics works here - the government generally speaking always has a majority and party discipline is rigidly enforced. At a state level it would mean giving the governor more power to make laws. Essentially, I mean that decision-making becomes less democratic.


I'd say that you could argue the converse, which is that negative liberty actually results in less liberty for large numbers of people because the conflicting interest groups, given the freedom to do as they please by central government, restrict each other's liberty (think of factory owners oppressing their workers, for example). Such a "free" system may be efficient but is it ethical?


Ok, so you think that defence, foreign policy and infrastructure improvement should be the responsibility of central (federal) government, but everything else should be the responsibility of state and municipal government? That is a essentially laissez-faire classical liberalism, a rather nineteenth-century view of political economy. It has remained popular in the US where, confusingly, it is often called conservatism... I understand why people in the US would be attracted to classical liberalism - it's a big place and I guess most people feel little affinity to the federal government, unlike in European countries which are small enough that the "federal government" is much closer to people's lives.

Personally I cannot comment on what style of government is appropriate for the US because I have not lived there. However I believe that the general opinion of Europeans is that Americans are becoming increasingly stuck in the past and clinging onto a vision of government that cannot be returned to because it makes too many assumptions about American society.

I figured that's what you meant. I'm not very good with political terms >.> in case you didn't notice, lol.


Ah, alright. I see what you're saying. I think that there's a few things I'd like to say to put this into perspective. First, no, it is not efficient nor is it ethical. The argument "well, it would have been more efficient back when..." no longer holds true. The world has changed. Sure, maybe it is due to unions and social programs that restrict oppression, but the reality is that social class as it had been has disappeared, and everyone is starting to find reason to respect everyone and the work they contribute again. There is a business policy strategy known as the triple bottom line: profit, planet, and people. It is a relatively new design policy, but as I have found the three of them work hand in hand in a lassiez-faire environment. If you treat the planet with respect, your resources last longer and are used more efficiently to reduce cost. If you treat your people with respect, they stay healthier and they stay with the company longer which reduces the cost of turnover. And since you show your customers how much you love your people and your planet, you can initiate value added pricing structure while saving money. Not to mention that there's been a huge push for social responsibility, where companies give back even more to the surrounding community. There are a lot of very successful companies that initiate these policies.


As I mentioned just now, I think that the time has never been better for free market. I think the gap (that is rapidly closing) in this logic is that customers just don't care. I'd like to say that I care, and that I make some of my different purchases based on values of the firm, and I acknowledge the markup I might pay as a result. There are those (which I will discuss in a moment) who go a little crazy with how much they care. But for the most part, people don't base buying decisions on how the product was made. In a recession, it is a luxury most people can't afford to think about. And it kinda sucks that I have to buy one item because I can't afford the other, but I need it to survive.

I have also noticed that a lot of well intended socialist programs or groups make unwarranted assumptions too, like many NGOs. For example, child labor in other countries. (If I haven't ostracized myself yet...) There is a point in which it is inhumane. However, for the most part, it is just the workings of a culture that is not like ours. A child may go off with his father to work to learn a trade that he will pass on down to his kid, without facing any immediate danger. A child in Mexico may get paid less than an adult in America. An organization may call for the boycott of items made in such inhumane ways. But it misses two very important things. First off: a child going with his father in most cases is in no direct harm. A child may be as old as twelve or thirteen. The family may rely on more than one income, and the child will go elsewhere for work, and as bitter as this sounds, I have heard of weaving collectives, after being shut down due to 'inhumane' practices concerning child labor, going into prostitution or human trafficking. It is unfortunate and extreme, and if I had to choose between a thirteen year old doing either, well, I think the answer is very obvious. And then there's the question of pay. A worker in Mexico is paid less than a worker in America, this is true. Most people in Mexico own property. I don't own property, my parents' don't own property, my boyfriend's parents don't own property...etc. The pay they receive, more often than not (and when its not, it is far beyond the reach of corporate influence that it isn't even fair to blame the company) will sustain the family and will get a few frivolous items if they can afford it. Sorry, a tangent, but I think it illustrated my point. It is a matter of human nature. It is almost impossible to expect me to understand entirely what anyone in any other country is thinking, or why they do it. So I will try to fit them into my world view, and upon failing, will try to change them. It is a disastrous cycle.