Linux As a Model For a New Government? 509
An anonymous reader writes "The hedge fund investor who prided himself on achieving 1000% returns, Andrew Lahde, wrote a goodbye letter to mark his departure from the financial world. In it, he suggests people think about building a new government model, and his suggestion is to have someone like George Soros fund a new government that brings together the best and brightest minds in a manner where they're not tempted by bribery. In doing so, he refers to how Linux grows and competes with Microsoft. An open source government. How would such a system work, and could it succeed? How long before it became corrupt? Would it need a benevolent dictator (Linus vs. Soros)?"
Open Source Govt. (Score:4, Informative)
Any one who has taken a poli sci class or a history class that covered ancient rome, athens or the founding of the US should see that the organization of ideas and resources in order to build a good software product is a vastly different paradigm than organizing a 'good' government.
First, the argument should be about what government means. I'm less concerned with what a government provides me ( a product ) than what it denies me. The moment government thinks it's supposed to produce a product as opposed to leave me alone, I would describe that government as tyrannical.
The bad mortgage/bad credit crisis was in large part created by people who felt it was the government's job to ensure anyone could get a house, regardless of ability to afford it. This is but one example of how government by good intentions invokes the law of unintended consequences for disastrous results.
he's stoned (Score:3, Informative)
Already on its way.. (Score:2, Informative)
Metagovernment. [metagovernment.org]
Re:A lot of my "liberal" friends seem to agree (Score:3, Informative)
In that case i think the term your looking for is socialist, in particular facist-socialists. where as you would be a liberal-conservative.
Perhaps the problem with the US is that its a country, the amount of power needed to run a country that big inevitably leads to a lot of pressure from special interest groups. There is also a huge discrepancy between how American's think of their federal government (something with limited power over the individual states, like the EU over its countries) and the reality (something which controls its states, like the UK gov over county councils). There is also the entire two party system problem and because you dont trust your main parties enough to not vote tamper, you wont even consider the solution (proportional representation over relevant areas), let alone will it ever be implemented, the 3rd party in a 2 party system here has won the popular vote a couple of times but not even come close to being in power.
But hey i should probably sort out my own shit (also a 2 party system, with both parties getting increasingly similar and power hungry, with plenty of corruption and an increasing amount of US style media manipulation) before i say anything.
Fundamentally a democracy (be it in a 'socialist' European form or a 'conservative' American form) is the best of a bad bunch of forms of government.
Re:Idiotic (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Idiotic (Score:3, Informative)
Which is who I meant....RMS is still a hero to the geek crowd....good call.
Re:How long before it became corrupt? (Score:5, Informative)
'...have someone like George Soros fund a new government that brings together the best and brightest minds in a manner where they're not tempted by bribery.'
This is an old idea, of course, most recently known as 'meritocracy', a term that many people are unaware was originally intended to be pejorative. Here's what Michael Young (who coined the term in the 50s) had to say about this type of system in business and politics back in 2001, well before the current economic mess:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/jun/29/comment [guardian.co.uk]
'The business meritocracy is in vogue. If meritocrats believe, as more and more of them are encouraged to, that their advancement comes from their own merits, they can feel they deserve whatever they can get. They can be insufferably smug, much more so than the people who knew they had achieved advancement not on their own merit but because they were, as somebody's son or daughter, the beneficiaries of nepotism. The newcomers can actually believe they have morality on their side. So assured have the elite become that there is almost no block on the rewards they arrogate to themselves. The old restraints of the business world have been lifted and, as the book also predicted, all manner of new ways for people to feather their own nests have been invented and exploited.'
Re:How long before it became corrupt? (Score:5, Informative)
Because communism has nothing to do with openness.
Quite the contrary, virtually all communist systems (there are many flavours) of past and present are particularly jealous of interference, be it from the inside or outside and it is probably one of the most conservative systems around.
I therefore suggest you start reading up on the subject before you fuck up during a next election.
Complete Balkans! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Especially with guys like George Soros at the h (Score:2, Informative)
This is the same Soros that is funding Moveon.org, hates Bush and his allies with a passion and has funded the democrats before this election to the tune of at least $20-30 million dollars?
We're supposed to trust Mr Liberal, there? No thanks.
Right-Wing Misinformation Alert (Score:5, Informative)
Berkshire Hathaway is Warren Buffet's company. Berkshire Hathaway does not specialize in "estate tax insurance and planning" which is not a "huge part" of their business. Berkshire Hathaway sells all sorts of things including electricity, candy, and insurance. But nobody sells "estate tax insurance" since people can only insure themselves against risks not known liabilities.
Before anybody listens to the parent's allegations of conflict of interest (which he curiously portrays as a phenomenon unique to the Democratic Party) I think it's fair to demand the following evidence:
BTW, I'm really excited to hear that url for estate tax insurance. Gosh, maybe he even sells other tax insurance, like income tax insurance! That would be awesome. Geeze, it seems like I have to pay that one every year.
Wait-a-minute! That's why buffet is supporting Obama's tax hike for the rich: He's going to make a mint selling the income tax insurance! Oh Buffet, you are a wiley one!
Re:Especially with guys like George Soros at the h (Score:4, Informative)
You are arguing that he is for the estate tax because he makes money on estate tax insurance. Sure. I'm sure it is has nothing to do with values about where the tax burden is least harmful. Taxes have to come from somewhere unless you want to just print money or borrow another $trillion from China.
I think the consensus on the bailout bill was that there would be catastrophic consequences for the US economy if the situation was not resolved. Do you have money in the bank (more than the then 100000 FDIC limit - btw the FDIC would go bankrupt pretty quick)? Do companies have money in banks? There was consensus among people who understood the situation that something needed to be done (except maybe Jim Rogers). The representatives risked their own re-election for the good of the public. Maybe it is a conspiracy that both candidates supported the bill and other countries are doing the same thing. Or maybe the average person does not understand our economic system. You decide. BTW I think they are getting ownership of the banks directly instead of buying debt instruments.
Buffett has been for raising the capital gains tax and I think Obama also. That is where he makes most of his money. The other way to get money out of stocks is dividends which is taxed as income. Of course you are not taxed until you sell a stock, but if you don't sell it you never get any money do you?
Business can deduct their expenses. So money used for growth is not included in "income" and is not taxed as your post would imply.
Smart people will profit from whatever the government does. I can understand disagreeing with their ideology, but suggesting that liberal multi-billionaires support raising taxes for their own FINANCIAL benefit seems a little far fetched.
Re:A lot of my "liberal" friends seem to agree (Score:2, Informative)
Uh, socialism is probably on a different axis than liberalism. (Of course, at this point these terms have all become horribly relative and muddled)
I've always understood it that liberalism was opposite of conservatism in that liberalism was interested in moving forward in terms of cultural and civil advancement, while conservatism was interested in retaining old values and keeping them in power. Socialism would be advocacy of wealth redistribution, something not necessarily opposed to traditional or more liberal values.
Re:Right-Wing Misinformation Alert (Score:2, Informative)
The parent made a laundry list of false and baseless statements. Just because I didn't take my precious time to argue with each one of them doesn't mean I need some pedantic retard to explain things for me.
Now let me respond to your point by looking at facts instead of speciously generated bullshit. As an investor, Warren Buffet makes money through capital gains instead of a salary. Now let's look at tax proposals [cnn.com]:
"McCain wants to cut capital gains tax in half to 7.5% for two years. Obama wants to raise it to 20% for wealthier investors."
So there you have the facts: Buffet would pay more taxes under Obama's proposal and less under McCain's. So this accusation that Buffet is preferentially supporting Obama for his tax policy is false. And it's not just false, it's a populist myth invented by right-wing ideologues to discredit the endorsement of Obama by one of America's premier capitalists.
Marxism is a system of analysis (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Ayn Rand (Score:3, Informative)