NationStates Jolt Archive

There have been a lot of manifestos on NS. The socialist manifesto the democratic communist etc But now I think its time of a right-wing manifesto, not fascist, you understand, just for those with a different slant on human nature. I would like to forward ideas for one in this thread that will form part of, with imput from you a unitied NS manifesto. Left-wingers are welcome to chip in but I would be grateful if you restrained yourself from hijacking the thread into somthing its not. The Poll is there to vote on if you've read the manfesto so far.

Do you mean capitalist as in statist or as in libertarian?

I wouldn't consider myself a libertarian but if you want to express that kind of thing then so be it.

I think this question brings up an important point on capitalism. As right wingers we often think the free market will solve all of our problems. Although in this manifesto I think we must pledge a commitment to caring for the environment. Think of it as another pillar of the night watchman state.

I wouldn't consider myself a libertarian but if you want to express that kind of thing then so be it.
Well you did say right wing capitalist, and that usually means minarchist or anarcho-capitalist, both liberal-libertarians of differing degrees of extremity.

All homeowners should be allowed to shoot intruders in the face.

I think this question brings up an important point on capitalism. As right wingers we often think the free market will solve all of our problems. Although in this manifesto I think we must pledge a commitment to caring for the environment. Think of it as another pillar of the night watchman state.
Indeed. There is a book called "Natural Capitalism" that advocates firms being more committed to protecting the environment, and it suggests ways in which this may be done.

I think this question brings up an important point on capitalism. As right wingers we often think the free market will solve all of our problems. Although in this manifesto I think we must pledge a commitment to caring for the environment. Think of it as another pillar of the night watchman state.
Negative externalities are recognized as part of the free market system. Even Freidman had the "Dirty Shirt" principle, and proposed a tax on pollution in Free to Choose.

The market certianley does not cause excess pollution (see former east block countries), lack of cost does. Which means that a state solution that does not take into account market forces (or even allow for a market solution), will be rife with unintended consequences.

All homeowners should be allowed to shoot intruders in the face.
Would renters be allowed to shoot too?

Do you mean capitalist as in statist or as in libertarian?

The distinction seems specious. Capitalism (like socialism) is dependent on the rule of law, and the coercion necessary to enforce that rule, in order to exist and operate. Thus, the existance and active participation of the state (Edit: or entities granted the ability to behave as states, regardless of our insistance on how they are somehow "privatised") in a capitalist system is inevitable; apart from pleasant fantasy, there isn't any "anti-statist" capitalism. Also, those with the greatest stake in the capitalist system will use their power and resources in order to ensure the continued existance of the state as an avenue by which they can exert and exploit unfair advantage (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Smith#Laws_and_business); economic power is political power.

The distinction seems specious. Capitalism (like socialism) is dependent on the rule of law, and the coercion necessary to enforce that rule, in order to exist and operate. Thus, the existance and active participation of the state in a capitalist system is inevitable; apart from pleasant fantasy, there isn't any "anti-statist" capitalism. Also, those with the greatest stake in the capitalist system will use their power and resources in order to ensure the continued existance of the state as an avenue by which they can exert and exploit unfair advantage (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Smith#Laws_and_business); economic power is political power.
I was referring more specifically to the minarchist aspect of libertarianism.

I was referring more specifically to the minarchist aspect of libertarianism.

Even that situation seems to fit the definition of "statism." The rhetoric states that in the "minarchist" society, the market would handle everything. But the fact remains that the market is only able to handle anything assuming the existance of the rule of law, as enforced by a state(-like) entity. As such, this entity plays a crucial role even in a minarchist society; without it, such an economic system would quickly collapse. I understand that the word "statist" is usually imployed in libertarian rhetoric to mean "socialist intervention." My point is that capitalism is just as dependent on "intervention" by the state as any other economic system.

Even that situation seems to fit the definition of "statism." The rhetoric states that in the "minarchist" society, the market would handle everything. But the fact remains that the market is only able to handle anything assuming the existance of the rule of law, as enforced by a state(-like) entity. As such, this entity plays a crucial role even in a minarchist society; without it, such an economic system would quickly collapse. I understand that the word "statist" is usually imployed in libertarian rhetoric to mean "socialist intervention." My point is that capitalism is just as dependent on "intervention" by the state as any other economic system.
And I acknowledge your point since I am aware of it myself. Perhaps I should have made the distinction of minarchist and big government capitalism, rather than statist (in libertarian terms) and minarchist capitalism.

There have been a lot of manifestos on NS. The socialist manifesto the democratic communist etc But now I think its time of a right-wing manifesto, not fascist, you understand, just for those with a different slant on human nature. I would like to forward ideas for one in this thread that will form part of, with imput from you a unitied NS manifesto. Left-wingers are welcome to chip in but I would be grateful if you restrained yourself from hijacking the thread into somthing its not. The Poll is there to vote on if you've read the manfesto so far.

As a die hard lefty, I'm unlikely to agree with anything the manifesto might produce, but if you're looking for starters, there's an interesting Wikipedia article on right-wing political thinking that's worth checking out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-Right_politics

Good luck, I look forwards to the publication of any such manifesto. It's nice to have a good political balance, if only for the sake of debate.

Perhaps I should have made the distinction of minarchist and big government capitalism, rather than statist (in libertarian terms) and minarchist capitalism.

Then, I could bring up the vague nature of the phrase "big government" (exactly what standard is used to determine "too big?"), as well as the apparent inevitability of the ever growing state under an economic system where economic (capitalism) or political (capitalism/socialism) power increase and centralize.

The distinction seems specious. Capitalism (like socialism) is dependent on the rule of law, and the coercion necessary to enforce that rule, in order to exist and operate. Thus, the existance and active participation of the state (Edit: or entities granted the ability to behave as states, regardless of our insistance on how they are somehow "privatised") in a capitalist system is inevitable; apart from pleasant fantasy, there isn't any "anti-statist" capitalism.
You have a major problem with degree, cohesion is nessicary but only in contract enforcement which is, by definition, a voluntary association.
Also, those with the greatest stake in the capitalist system will use their power and resources in order to ensure the continued existance of the state as an avenue by which they can exert and exploit unfair advantage (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Smith#Laws_and_business); economic power is political power.
Which is precisely why systemic power needs to be limited. The same argument can be applied to power in general, those with the greatest amount of power will use their [existing] power and resources in order to ensure the continued existence of the state as an avenue by which they can exert and exploit unfair advantage and otherwise expand their power.
All money is, is a representation of labor and resources.

Also economic power is not political power, though political power can be bought and sold for money or goods. Also, political power always supersedes "economic power."

Every human sytem will fail, as it has to deal with humans.

You have a major problem with degree


Degree is irrevelant. Those who control the most resources (labor, capital, legitimate coercion, etc) will naturally seek to maximize and expand that control, thus maximizing and expanding control and influence over society as a whole. Increasingly "big government" is inevitable. The libertarian or anarcho-capitalist's greatest enemy is the capitalist (similarly, the libertarian or anarcho-socialist's greatest enemy is the socialist).


...cohesion is nessicary but only in contract enforcement which is, by definition, a voluntary association.


The legitimate coercion needed to enforce those contracts, however, is not necessarily so.


Also economic power is not political power, though political power can be bought and sold for money or goods. Also, political power always supersedes "economic power."


Politics is nothing more than the process by which a resource, power (the ability to form society according to one's wishes), is distributed among society. Thus politics is ultimately invoked to answer a question that is extremely similar to, if not the same as, that typically asked in the course of economics: "who gets how much power and for what price?" As I stated above, those with the ability to command labor and physical resources possess an ability to shape society. The more of such command possessed, the more power one has. Economic power leads directly to political power, and vice versa.


Every human sytem will fail, as it has to deal with humans.


So why should I prefer one particular system?

Would renters be allowed to shoot too?

As long as theyre careful. I almost had an embarassing incident with some people who the landlord let in to look at the house for next year.

Degree is irrevelant. Those who control the most resources (labor, capital, legitimate coercion, etc) will naturally seek to maximize and expand that control, thus maximizing and expanding control and influence over society as a whole. Increasingly "big government" is inevitable. The libertarian or anarcho-capitalist's greatest enemy is the capitalist (similarly, the libertarian or anarcho-socialist's greatest enemy is the socialist). So is the socialists's greatest enemy the capitalist?

The legitimate coercion needed to enforce those contracts, however, is not necessarily so. Caveat emptor.

Politics is nothing more than the process by which a resource, power (the ability to form society according to one's wishes), is distributed among society. Thus politics is ultimately invoked to answer a question that is extremely similar to, if not the same as, that typically asked in the course of economics: "who gets how much power and for what price?" As I stated above, those with the ability to command labor and physical resources possess an ability to shape society. The more of such command possessed, the more power one has. Economic power leads directly to political power, and vice versa.
Not really, peasants uprisings often killed thier land lords, and the wealthy where shot in Cambodia.

There are always intagibles.
So why should I prefer one particular system?
No reason, really.

So is the socialists's greatest enemy the capitalist?I would say yes, as well as the socialist, in this case the authoritarian socialist.

Would renters be allowed to shoot too?


No, just property owners. They should be the only ones who are allowed to vote too.

In relation to the environment, I have a proposal of sorts:

- give a tax reduction/ rebate to those companies, deemed by an independant and objective comittee, to be beneficient to the environment, and increase taxation, or fine. those corporations culpable of the inverse.

Moreover, a few miscellanious points:

- abolish all welfare payments for the unemployed who are deemed physically and mentally capable, irrespective of their being single parents or not, with state employment programs established for those unwilling to work after a period of two months unemployment pay at thei previous rate of pay.

- privatise health care, with a sliding scale of subsidized payments for the poor, and entirely subsidized healthcare for those over the age of 60.

-cease all asylum programs, deport any immigrant of fifth generation or less, who is found culpable of a criminal offence, and only admit those immigrants of sufficient means and skills to directly benefit the economy.