A firm statement from the squishy middle...

[elfs]

Goddess, yes. Charles Stross says it exactly like it is:

I just want a party to vote for whose three guiding principles are (a) maximize individual liberty, (b) minimize the Gini coefficient, and (c) protect the commons. Yes, I am aware that these three goals are orthogonal and often conflict with one another: that's why it requires an ongoing process of negotiation rather than an ideologically-driven damn-the-torpedoes race to the goal.

Some people think liberty is an endpoint. It's not. It's a process. We can do more or less of it. Right now, there's less.

In the meantime, kids, enjoy this analysis of the "We are the 99%" website:

The overwhelming majority of these statements are actionable demands in the form of (i) free us from the bondage of these debts and (ii) give us a bare minimum to survive on in order to lead decent lives. These are the demands of a peasantry, not a working class.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Hrm, minimizing the Gini coefficient is really not something to shoot for. Reducing it from its current level, absolutely, but Gini 0 indicates absolute wealth equality, which is impossible in the real world, and pretty morally repugnant even if it weren't.

We should be aiming for a Gini coefficient that results in the best balance between economic growth, social responsibility, and sustainability.

Number 127

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Maximal individual liberty is also not something to shoot for. The right agitates for "economic freedom," without actually pointing out that what they really want is not freedom, but an obligation to work to make the money needed to survive, even when we live in a world where automation means that only maybe 10% of the population is really needed to keep all of us fed, clothed, housed, and entertained.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_candide_/]

Orthogonal axes cannot conflict with each other. That is, after all, the definition of orthogonality: operating utterly independently of one another.

Sorry, but I'm a physicist by training and hearing someone confuse "orthogonality" with "opposite" makes my skin crawl.

Actually...

[ideaphile.livejournal.com]

Actually, maximal individual liberty is something to shoot for. Literally. A lot of people have done a lot of shooting to get it.

Are you looking for laws that require the most productive 10% of us to work to support the rest? What you'll see is a simultaneous *shrug* by everyone in the selected 10%.

Let me clear something up for you. It isn't the "right" that wants to impose an "obligation to work to... survive."

That obligation is imposed by nature.

What the right wants is for some men not to impose obligations on others without their consent and without returning equivalent benefits.

By the way, I'm curious about that 10% figure. Care to show your work?

. png

Just goes to show...

[ideaphile.livejournal.com]

Stross is a fantasy writer. Period.

. png