What's your generation and how would you change your government?

[David Horn]

(03-18-2022, 08:17 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(03-15-2022, 10:21 AM)David Horn Wrote: All you say is true, but it still fails on one level.  We are now at the end of 40+ years of a social model that empowered individuals but restrained the commons.  What has that produced?  As you note, regulatory capture is a major "success", at least it is for the powerful who did the capturing.  Tax restraint has guaranteed that needed spending will never happen -- only spending with strong support by the same individuals and groups that captured our regulatory apparatus. Unless you are already part of the top, you missed out and aren't likely to join them.

Since this has had an open run of 40+ years, the imbalances that have been created can't be addressed by "leveling the playing field".  The playing field needs to be tilted in reverse, at least for a while, so we can finally produce something approximating general prosperity, and repair old and create new infrastructure -- physical and social.  At some point, that will also become a net negative, and the return to individualism will return ... but not soon.

edit: I misread. what does "tilting the playing field in reverse" entail? I really don't like the sound of that (it sounds like confiscation, witch hunts, and "sins of the father" style retribution, not like building up a new middle class)

We don't have any need to look back for demons. They're here today. Today's rich and powerful have played the role of Svengali to a tee. In response, our first step: convince the victims that they are, in fact, victims. The second step: reclaim what has been stolen.

Now, you seem to support the argument that, "This is mine, I stole it fair and square." And yes, the powerful have used the tools intended to restrain them to restrain us and maximize benefits to themselves. Here's the question: is turnabout fair play? I say yes in spades.

JasonBlack Wrote:The part I disagree with is that focusing on empowering the individual vs empowering society is a false dichotomy. We want to empower a society which empowers the individual. The GIs did a very good job of this. The boomers rightly called them out for narrowly focusing on straight white people rather than trying to empower Americans of all races and sexualities (they also did so at the appropriate time, choosing a 2T to wage moral warfare rather than a 4T), but the basic idea of building a society that promotes confident, vigorous individuals is a win-win for everyone, not a proposition that requires sacrificing one for the sake of the other.

The GIs, including my own parents, maximized benefits to them and theirs, and limited who got to be part of the tribe for reasons unrelated to their own actions. They were still 19th century thinkers. Let's not laud them for being wise in that regard, but let's agree that shared responsibility, including burden sharing, is no longer optional. Let's make the burden and the benefits more broadly shared, certainly. But let's not give the rapacious a free pass to keep their ill gotten gains either.