Teleros wrote:No; libertarians tend to like a state that's good at defence and law & order (and I include things like property rights and other very modest market regulations etc), but which otherwise does nothing, or next-to-nothing. In place of a welfare state funded by coercion (ie, taxes) you have charity, which is entirely voluntary. Socialism in all its forms tends to result in government coercing you to do something ("you WILL NOT work more than 8hrs a day, you WILL NOT be allowed to work for less than the minimum wage" etc), which is what libertarians object to on a philosophical basis.
I don't know that I was far off enough for you to say "No". Lol. I know all of that, though. Well, I guess I didn't know it effectively enough to regurgitate it. It would be regurgitation because I don't identify with it. That's just my beliefs and understandings. But, instead of making base judgments, I summarily researched libertarianism. I've read blogs and FAQS by libertarians and even read a little of Friedman's work [very little].
Teleros wrote: If you want an example of a good libertarian, try Milton Friedman: he advocated slashing a vast amount of regulations, but was also in favour of a minimum income (not wage, income) in place of almost every kind of welfare benefit, education vouchers to give parents total control over school choice, etc. A more extreme version - or anarcho-capitalist as he calls himself is his son David Friedman, who would prefer *everything* except national defence (because he can't think of a way to successfully privatise it :P ) to be privatised (even the legal system!).
If anything, I side with anarcho-socialism. State socialism [like Marxism, Leninism, and other forms of Communism] leads to as much bureaucracy and inequality as any other system. American socialists mostly agree on this. Especially, the 'softer' democratic socialists which I guess I'm on board with [but that you would probably say are dead-wrong]. My problem is I see many sides and it's hard to say I am this or that, because I see the flaws with that group. I'm not against the buying and selling of goods.
You and I are not going to agree. You're thoughtful and well-researched. I'd like to think I am as well. I could cite examples of the kinds of system I'd like to see and you will point out flaws or call my understanding false. And you could point out systems you think were right or close to right and I could point out flaws and inaccuracies.
What I think we would agree on is that government should be by the people and for the people instead of the few elite. We just disagree what leads to that tyranny and how exactly to solve it.
Teleros wrote: Modern liberals tend to be more authoritarian than libertarians though. Take, say, equal pay. A modern liberal will typically say "there must be a law demanding equal pay for equal work - it's immoral to pay women less". A libertarian will typically say "whatever, it's the employer's choice, so don't impose your views on his choice."
I was talking about the Liberals in the game. Theoretically, 'liberals' should be for less government control and more civil liberties. But you're right that 'the left' is about the government doing things that should create more equality and liberty. We could go on forever about the flawed logic of that. But, I was saying that the Liberals in the game are somewhat
libertarian. If you notice, they hate gun laws and drug laws just as real-life Libertarians do.
As for the gender pay gap problem, I would say that if we leave it up to corporate employers, there will be no progress and women as a whole will continue to struggle to get ahead despite the many unnecessary social obstacles in their way. However, small business owners and even some corporate leaders are of the same mind and choose to pay what they can as fairly as they can. I don't think a few people who sit in a building all day making detached decisions and arguing should decide how to fix the problem. There should be meetings of employees, employers, and mediators to try to solve the problem. You mentioned depending on charity for social welfare. I agree that we can't forget philanthropists and donors who choose to do good things with their money without forceful coercion, although there is definitely social pressure to do so. We can also not forget the robber baron types that were the whole reason progressive social mudraking began in the first place and why the government had to step in. Those types still exist today, except now they are part of the federal government instead of outside of it.
Teleros wrote: I've been mucking around with the core game's policies as well
Yes, I love this feature. For instance, I changed it so that legalizing all drugs decreases organized crime & regular crime and organizing cannabis slightly increases GDP. That sounds like something we would agree on, maybe. However, I also added an exponential formula for legal drug consumption that increases crime, because people get stupid on hardcore drugs.
Thanks for discussing things with me. I appreciate your well-written input. Sorry to everyone else for hijacking and clogging up this thread.
To SANC, I like your breakdown. Do you or have you played NationStates online?