Politics and Economy: My thoughts from a Libertarian-*Leaning*, Constitutionalist Perspective.

[Beaches & Nature fan]

Greetings folks: 

Recently I had a lot of dialogue with our great friend Ernie, regarding political and economics views. We had a lively dialogue, and I am now going to sum it up, as to what my thought processes are, in these subjects.

To summarize the below: I am one of a few things: Libertarian **leaning**. A pro-market centrist. A constitutionalist (remember, the Constitution wanted limited government. My, how we have deviated from this!). Or "Center-Libertarian". Or Classical-Liberal-Leaning. Take your pick. Labels are just a bunch of words, anyway; it's the substance behind the labels that matter. But those labels would most accurately describe my way of thinking. 

Here is now the breakdown of that thinking. I used bullet points for easier navigation, and red highlights to bring home the most important points:

1). When it comes to the government, my way of thinking is: government has the same flawed human beings as society and markets as a whole. So, less government (without too little) is better. I.e.  the smaller the government, the less chance of things like the following happening:

    a). Corruption

    b). Dictatorship/Tyranny

    c). Government favoritism and backing, which unfairly favors some corporations over others.

    d). Terrible amounts of debt and fiscal mismanagement in general

    e). Fraud Waste and Abuse, the kind we waste millions - sorry billions- of dollars each year on.

So yes, I believe a smaller government, (not pea-sized small like most libertarians want - that's too extreme) has less chance of the above things happening. Not zero chance, but less chance.

Mind you, unlike anarchists and near-anarchist Libertarians: I respect some government. We absolutely DO need some government, but significantly smaller/more limited. What is in that smaller government, I leave to debate. For me, what should be in that smaller government is infrastructure/public works/sanitation, military, law and order, fire department, ambulance. Welfare in the form of a check, not some extensive Welfare Office. And a few other things. And that's it. Privatize all the rest.

All the above, adds up to a much smaller government than the one we have. 

What's more, is that a smaller government means it's less costly to maintain - less taxes to have to pay. 

On top of that, I propose a sales-only tax, or a tariff-only tax, or maybe the geo-libertarian take, a land-only tax. Make one of those the singular tax revenue for the country, instead of income tax. That way we keep the money we earn, we are rewarded for saving money instead of being taxed for it. And it may force people to assess their spending habits. Oh, the joy of eliminating or greatly reducing the IRS!!

2). This brings me to my attitude about the free market. I believe in customer-ism, or market-ism. This is where corporations and companies compete with each other, without any government backing or favoritism whatsoever. No tax breaks, no subsidies, no other favoritism of any kind from  the government. In this system, success or failure is EARNED. i.e, We don't have government picking the winners and losers; it is the PEOPLE who decide which companies make it, and which don't. 

Now you may ask yourself: what about the greed, the corruption, the bad angels of human nature, in the marketist/customerist model? Here is my answer:

The customerist/marketist model is far better at addressing the good and bad angels of human nature, than government. Here's why:

In the marketist/customerist model, if a company behaves in a corrupt way, or has bad ethics: customers, **ideally**, will see this, and leave the business. And then, this business will eventually go out of business.

On the flip side, if a company is doing great, because they treat their customers with care, because they have very good, non-corrupt practices, etc. - this company will succeed, and far outshine other companies. And it would be well deserved.

On the other hand, a "bad" company that has extensive government subsidies, tax breaks and other backing - these backings would keep this "bad" company existing longer than it should, thereby absolutely wrecking true market competition.

3). So we talked about what happens to a "bad" company in the marketist-customerist model. Ideally it would eventually go out of business. But a corrupt government on the other hand??? Any change for the better could take lifetimes. You see, government is much more of a monolithic Leviathan, it does not have the kind of competition that the market has. Government employees will earn a paycheck no matter what happens to society. So in reality, the government does not have nearly as much incentive as the free market to improve or lower it's corruption. So again, trying to make government, especially a corrupt or tyrannical one,  better,  could potentially take lifetimes.

4). Another advantage of the pro-marketism, small-government model I proposed: too much blame and praise goes to politicians for making society and economy better or worse. With a smaller government, we can now look at what SOCIETY is doing wrong. What are SOCIETY's attitudes that need to change for the better? The focus can be on that, rather than only on such a small subset of society; i.e., what government and politicians are doing wrong.

5). Now,  our discussion further ensued, and another argument was very well brought up: well if we want to reduce corruption, reduce society as a whole. My answer would be: Society as a whole is too big, too boundary-less, for us to really grasp it as a whole. All we can do is make the best observations we can, and provide the best input we can, with the observational apparatus we have, which is undoubtedly limited compared to the vastness of society as a whole.

Now, government is a subset of society; it has the same flawed human beings as the free market does. But at least, government DOES have boundaries. So at the very least, we can reduce an entity like government, with boundaries we CAN see, unlike the vastness of society at large.

So all of my above points are why I much prefer a limited-government, pro-market society. Now, I am fully aware that I am speaking from a very idealist perspective; I know that no system is perfect. There will be unintended consequences to any political and economic model. I am perfectly aware of this. So I am sure you will find holes to shoot, in my arguments.

I hope you enjoyed this read - take it for what you think it is worth, that is up to you.

I wish all of you a happy holiday season,

Vik

[Ernest Prabhakar]

Hi Vik,

> well if we want to reduce corruption, reduce society as a whole

So, would you agree with me that the nation state (as our fundamental unit of political organization) is reaching its expiration date?

Love,
Ernie

[Beaches & Nature fan]

In terms of the "large" amount of government we have today, absolutely, yes.

--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <Radical...@googlegroups.com>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to RadicalCentri...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/RadicalCentrism/EDAF7DEE-CEA8-412B-AC4D-976CC71E209B%40gmail.com.

[Ernest Prabhakar]

Dear Vik,

 > 

So, would you agree with me that the nation state (as our fundamental unit of political organization) is reaching its expiration date?

> In terms of the "large" amount of government we have today, absolutely, yes.

Any thoughts on what would replace it? Anarchy always sounds fun, until the bullies move in. 

That’s how we end up with empires, and the tangled web of social obligations and corruption that keep them alive…

E

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 12, 2025, at 20:57, Beaches & Nature fan <mountai...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/RadicalCentrism/CAK2f142j_v%2B2xizhqiZAo_smL0ORs%2BoKZdG4dH0ww%3DvKHxPcOg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Beaches & Nature fan]

I hope we are not taking my words to extremes (as people often do, which is unfortunate).

I never support anarchism, and reject anarchism as a way of life or society.

I do absolutely believe heavily in marketism/customerism forces being the solution of a lot of things, more than "typical" Democrats or Republicans.  

But that said,  marketism/customerism cannot be the solution to **everything**. Again I ask that you all refrain from taking my words to extremes - this is the kind of climate we live in today and that's unfortunate. 

Unlike anarchists, I am keenly aware that there are certainly some things the government does better (I outlined earlier what I believe should be in government, and privatize the rest).

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/RadicalCentrism/5D13006A-23E4-4A39-A2CF-2F988BA1096F%40gmail.com.

[Ernest Prabhakar]

Dear Vik,

I apologize; that came across snarkier than I attended. I don’t think you are an anarchist. 

However, I am genuinely curious whether you’ve thought about *why* we have the corrupt systems we do today. 

My perspective is that civilization — in fact, any humans system — is a series of negotiated compromises. Trade offs, if you will. 

I also worry you underestimate just how fragile that balancing act is, and how many of the behaviors you decry are in fact rational reactions for avoiding anarchy.  

Happy to discuss specifics if that is too vague.  

Love,

Ernie

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 13, 2025, at 05:12, Beaches & Nature fan <mountai...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/RadicalCentrism/CAK2f1431vYueBJRb6aSJ4V3vifvRUFLS8NvoydcEKd4pj12i%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Beaches & Nature fan]

"However, I am genuinely curious whether you’ve thought about *why* we have the corrupt systems we do today. " Sure, I have thought quite deeply about it. Probably more than I write here. As to "why" we have these corrupt systems: human beings are corrupt. They have their good angels, but their corrupt angels too. As humans are corrupt, the systems they create (be it government, private sector) will have corruption in them. (As well as good things too).

My perspective is that civilization — in fact, any humans system — is a series of negotiated compromises. Trade offs, if you will. Most definitely, I agree. And I also think, it's a matter of what "bad" tradeoffs a person, or group of people, are willing to put up with, at a certain time - like you said, compromises.

I would add another kind of "trading":  how do cultures form (good and bad ones)? They are formed primarily through exchange, some kind of trading of information. 

I also worry you underestimate just how fragile that balancing act is, and how many of the behaviors you decry are in fact rational reactions for avoiding anarchy.  - Don't  worry:)  I don't underestimate the fragility of this balance at all. LIFE is fragile. Therefore, the systems human life creates, and hence the ensuing balancing act, is fragile. Us, sitting in front of our keyboards, spouting our opinions, we most definitely take the fragility of life for granted. I can't say that I too, am above taking things for granted.

 I would add though, not all human behavior is "rational". There is greed, hatred, prejudice, love, joy, "it feels good", "it feels bad", self-cherishing/egoistic/natonalistic/religious pride...all these non-rational elements are "caked" into human society, whether government or non-government. And undoubtedly, at least to some extent, these non-rational feelings and sentiments go into how they feel politically, belief-system-wise, and in the actions they do. So the rational reactions you site is really a combination or rational and non-rational elements, which is what we our-selves, are. Remember that there is a "self", or at least a concept of a self, that is attached to every thought, every opinion, every viewpoint, and hence, every action or decision that emerges from those viewpoints.

To your point about reactions/intentions for avoiding anarchy - if you mean avoiding anarchy in terms of government laws and regulations: Sure. Apart from anarchists (which I am not), that's the intention of government: to avoid anarchy. And yes, Ernie, I absolutely respect that intention. But it must be understood, and I have said this several times: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

There is a saying that "government creates the very problems it tries to solve." I would expand that to say "in trying to solve the problem of anarchy, government can create even more problems." I have a keen understanding of all of this, which is why I hold the views I hold. Our great founding fathers, particularly George Washington, most definitely understood this. Of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't have government - of course we need it. But, limited (and of course, the degree of limitation desired, varies by individual)

So, sometimes, when we try to solve one problem, another problem emerges. And so, the series of negotiated compromises you speak of: We can also state, that each of us is part of an interconnected web that is the whole, that is full of interdependencies: When this happens, that happens. This, causes that, to happen, good or bad. (And what is "good" or "bad" is really just definitions we in society create).

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/RadicalCentrism/0ED1DDE2-E006-4125-95E8-457C800E1DCA%40gmail.com.

[Ernest Prabhakar]

Hi Vik,

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

There is a saying that "government creates the very problems it tries to solve." I would expand that to say "in trying to solve the problem of anarchy, government can create even more problems."

Actually, I would agree with an even stronger version of that: government exists to solve external problems by creating internal problems. :-)

Unfortunately, once you start down the road of civilization, there doesn’t appear to be any offramp. In order to survive, you have to keep on tackling new problems, but the price is greater and greater internal corruption. 

If we disagree about anything, it is that you appear to wish we could just cut back or stop growing. 

My perspective is that we need a fundamental reset; not so much less government, but a whole different conception of what government is. That transcends the complexity rather than denying it…

Love,

Ernie

[Beaches & Nature fan]

Actually, I would agree with an even stronger version of that: government exists to solve external problems by creating internal problems. :-) I would say the government creates external AND internal problems, by trying to solve external problems. :)

Unfortunately, once you start down the road of civilization, there doesn’t appear to be any offramp. In order to survive, you have to keep on tackling new problems, but the price is greater and greater internal corruption.  - Absolutely: things evolve. Things change. Sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better. The Law of Impermanence. Or, This Too Shall Pass. 

The Web of Interdependent Causation which we are all a part of, that I talked about in my last email:  it's not just for moment to moment. It's also from generation to generation. Case in point: the 1950s. This was a decade of much prosperity. Not for everyone, but for many. There were a lot of "good families", where people went to school, went to college, got a job, got married, had kids, and rinse and repeat. But a problem was brewing, as the next decade came on: many people asked, is that all there is to life? This repeating cycle,all the time? So the prosperity of the 1950's led to 1960's rebellion, which led to more drugs, more broken families, more crime, which led to....you get the idea. Again, because This happens, That happens....this chain of causation goes on and on. And indeed, there is no offramp. New challenges will always occur. No question about that.

If we disagree about anything, it is that you appear to wish we could just cut back or stop growing.  I must correct you on your interpretation here. I only said to cut back on government. By no means, did I say for society as a whole, to stop growing, or evolving. There seems to be an underlying assumption that seems to underlie all of your responses on this topic thus far: that because I want a small subset of society called government to be reduced, I want society as a whole to be reduced as well. This is not correct. 

 I want  society, and us as individuals, to keep growing  - preferably, growing for the better, not worse.And I get curious about it too - We spoke about the chain of causative events from the 1950s onwards to more recent times. I wonder what the next chain of causative events will be, from now onwards .Stay tuned! What a ride! What a journey. And like you said, whatever does happen, there will probably never be an offramp.

Now let me add: there ARE times, when "less is more". I.e, when we lose things,, or lessen things, we can gain, something else.

And another phrase applies, called "work smarter not harder". I am sure, and I hope, you  are not averse to these sayings. They don't apply everywhere, for sure, but they apply to some things.

Best,

Vik

--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <Radical...@googlegroups.com>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to RadicalCentri...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/RadicalCentrism/89B51EEB-AE23-4E24-8836-36170725F18C%40gmail.com.

[Ernest Prabhakar]

Dear Vik,

If we disagree about anything, it is that you appear to wish we could just cut back or stop growing.  I must correct you on your interpretation here. I only said to cut back on government.

Ah, let me be more precise then:

I do not believe it is possible to “cut back” on government in any substantial way without radically restructuring  society. 

If you have a concrete proposal otherwise, I’d love to hear it. 

In my view, government (all identity, in fact) is a complicated negotiation between various internal and external parts. 

Like software, it is much, much easier to tack on a new feature to solve an immediate problem that rewrite an entire stack other people are still using. 

Also, most rewrites fail, or make other things worse. Yet,  sometimes we reach our generative limit and have no option left but to try something different…

E

[Beaches & Nature fan]

"I do not believe it is possible to “cut back” on government in any substantial way without radically restructuring  society." 

Sure, so what I would add then, is, that's probably how it is about most people's belief systems, be it political, economic or religious. In other words,  ideally, even subconsciously, we want the world to function in the ideals we believe in. But that's not going to happen in any substantial way without radically restructuring society. So certainly, from this much broader standpoint, I agree with what you are saying.

Therefore, it also follows with what you mentioned about having a mindset of generosity. Oh how I wish more people could have this attitude! The world surely needs more compassion and generosity. But trying to cultivate this, among many hundreds of millions of Americans, and billions of people worldwide, is quite a daunting task. But, we can have hope! Without hope, all this is useless.

And to add to that vein, none of what we are discussing here, should ever stop us from having our beliefs, standing for them, and not backing down from them, which I certainly don't, on anything I've said. At the same time, we should have open,rational  civil discourse about our beliefs, without trying to impose our beliefs on anyone else.

And at the end of the day, where do these political, economic, religious beliefs, etc. come from? They come from each individual. So in terms of the bigger - actually ginormous, - picture of society, that's all we can ultimately work on - ourselves, each individual at a time. Well as the great Confucious once said "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."

--

--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <Radical...@googlegroups.com>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to RadicalCentri...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/RadicalCentrism/2D0CA6A1-E529-424C-BB7D-E05CB149A1B8%40gmail.com.

[Beaches & Nature fan]

In adding to my previous email here, let me put it this way: I didn't come to this group to "radically restructure society". I came here to give my ideas of why society is the way it is, why the economy and government is the way it is. Why human nature is, the way it is, from a libertarian-leaning, Austrian Economics perspective. (i.e., Austrian Economics being the most popular branch of economics for most Libertarians).

My other reason for coming here is that you\wrote a critique on Libertarianism a few years ago. I am not saying I disagree or agree with that critique, but since Libertarianism means a lot to me, and I saw that critique, I thought I'd expand on it. I wouldn't have discussed it here, if you didn't write that critique.

Though I am very much into libertarian-leaning-ism, and Austrian Economics, I doubt many of us who are into it are putting up protest signs saying "Make the world libertarian or Austrian Economist NOW!". I am sure just about none of us, are expecting the world to change to libertarian or Austrian Economic ways in lifetimes, let alone overnight.

Therefore, what these 2 disciplines are, to me, are, are mainly schools of thought. They are two tools, of many, that give us an understanding of today's realities, of why things are the way they are, of human nature in general. 

Everyone has their set of "shoulds", their own ideals of how society, economics and government "should" be, but most of those ideals are far from today's realities. It's normal to have these ideals, it's part of human nature.

So what I offer is more of an understanding of reality through my lens.

I am perfectly aware that my understanding is one of many. I know there are understandings that are very different from mine, and I try to be respectful of the variety of understandings that are out there, with rational discourse.

Best,

Vik

[Ernest Prabhakar]

Dear Vik,

Thank you so much for coming, and I deeply appreciate your energy and generosity.

> I am perfectly aware that my understanding is one of many. I know there are understandings that are very different from mine, and I try to be respectful of the variety of understandings that are out there, with rational discourse.

Let me then ask the awkward question, which was the root of my conflict with Libertarians: What do you mean by “rational discourse?”

For me, “rational” means “maximal use of available data” by being:

1. clear about assumptions
2. excited to explore logical consequences of beliefs
3. hungry for better data
4. readinesses to adapt beliefs based on better information

I have painfully learned that this is not always what others mean, and would prefer to not make that same mistake. :-)

Love,
Ernie

[Beaches & Nature fan]

I didn't intend on the definitions you stated, when I said rational discourse. I really meant civil discourse, first and foremost, as to the nature of discourse I have with others.

--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <Radical...@googlegroups.com>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to RadicalCentri...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/RadicalCentrism/98D37E41-A5E0-4B7C-B72C-AB9EB9B5E0A0%40gmail.com.

[Ernest Prabhakar]

Then can you define “discourse”? :-)

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 9, 2025, at 15:12, Beaches & Nature fan <mountai...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/RadicalCentrism/CAK2f140gk%2Bf1zuE-AiGEL4d5TAcfHv7tomw%2BVxNqF7KayjkuhA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Beaches & Nature fan]

Let me preface my response by saying: Different people express their words in different ways, most of them not intending to adhere to a strict set of definitions, as defined by "another" source.

By discourse, I mean conversation, I mean exchange of ideas. A civil exchange of points, and ideas.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/RadicalCentrism/E8F7E730-9540-43E5-9881-4C4373F672D9%40gmail.com.

[Ernest Prabhakar]

Ah, thank you. I tend to implicitly assume “collaborative discovery of truth”, which makes me annoying at parties…

E

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 9, 2025, at 15:27, Beaches & Nature fan <mountai...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/RadicalCentrism/CAK2f143g8ZE%2Bp%2Bzvc_n75tJQBL1RO4y9Y7ZoZjSG64P07jAhqA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Beaches & Nature fan]

Hi Ernie and group,

I had intended to reply to your messages on this subject much earlier, but got sidetracked and it escaped my mind. 

I absolutely share your plight with Libertarians as you stated. I have argued with many of the "extreme" libertarians that give that party a crappy name in this country. You are right, about them. I never denied it.

In fact, I have decided to remove "Libertarian" from my vocabulary, in terms of what I stand for.

In doing research into my inner self, I really am not too much into politics. I really am, however, into economics. Especially, many of the major schools:

-Keynesian

-Austrian

-Chicago School/Monetarism

-Behavioral Economics

-Public Choice Theory (this is the Behavioral Economics of government, i.e., it analyzes voter and politician behavior from an economics lens)

I appreciate ALL the above schools, as several pieces of One Great Pie. Collectively, they center around one question: How much or how little should the government intervene, in the economy? It is a great question, that I don't propose an answer for. As I've mentioned before, to me it is all about prognosis, more than prescription. As has been said, in the end, there is no ultimate solution, only tradeoffs, or ups and downs to all schools of thought.

 Therefore, I appreciate all the viewpoints of the above economic schools, because I don't latch on so heavily to any one view. So.I take joy in hearing several points of view.

And so, really more than "libertarian leaning", I would better describe myself as an "economics-minded Independent".

Sure, there are other avenues in life to study: like law, medicine, engineering, etc...but for me, my main interest is economics. 

I therefore care very little about left vs. right, liberal vs.conservative, etc...because to me, spending much time on those is a divisive waste of time. Therefore, beyond any party, my main interest is as I previously described: How much or how little, should government intervene, in the economy/market?

You also previously asked, what are the "takeaways" from what I have written? I have always said, the answer is in what I write; you decide to take away what I write on. That's up to you to decide. But, I can offer suggestions:

1). Understand the true value of doing good. As Milton Friedman once said, in order to do true good, one must be free to do that good. In other words, do a good act because you have sincere intentions from the heart. Don't do a good act just because government tells you to. That's not true good at all, it's just compliance. Apply this in your daily life in all you do.

2). I am not at all anti-government. I have a strong appreciation for the good things government does. But understand,  it has SEVERE limitations and challenges in some ways, in terms of how good and effective it can be for the country it governs. A central planner, like federal government, while it is quite needed, also cannot know all the needs, transactional activity, and wants, of 340 million people. It's not happening.

I think I mentioned this in the past: I don't choose democracy because it is awesome. It has good points, but it is not awesome. It too has major limitations and challenges. I choose democracy more because it is the least bad system out there. Winston Churchill once said "Democracy is the worst system of government - except for all the others." And he is absolutely right.

3). Several prominent economists  (Hayek and Mises in particular)  have touched on this, but are very short-sighted about it as well. Allow me to explain: We are bound by natural laws. Laws of physics and science in general. And depending on one's spiritual beliefs, we are bound by spiritual laws as well. The law of karma comes to mind here. And these laws, physics or spiritual or natural, are MUCH greater than any control that government tries to exert. 

Take also the law of Spontaneous Order, a major touching point of Hayek. This philosophy states that things like languages cultures, even monetary systems, and other things: They were created not by government, but by the people. They were created, randomly, spontaneously; there was no single "mastermind", or central planner, that created any of these things.   

I think the above, are great points; all the above laws are stronger than any government. But here is where those economists are wrong: Those laws are much more powerful than the capitalist system, too. Those laws are much more powerful than ANY system consisting of humans, be it government or private sector. The way libertarians defend capitalism, to a ridiculous fault, acting like it is The Ultimate Solution to human kind...is quite disturbing. No system is immune to, or can ever equal, the forces of the laws mentioned.

In fact, one can argue that there is NO ultimate solution - only tradeoffs. Only a complex, interconnected web of causes and effects, many of which are unintended consequences. A web that is certainly much, much larger and more complex than any group or system of humans.

4). Which leads me to the next point. All systems have their good and bad points, and good and bad people, be it capitalism or government. Government contains the same flawed human beings as the rest of society. As human beings are both good and corrupt, so are the systems they participate in.

5). So what is the ultimate point in all that I have said here? One's own attitude, one's own faith, one's own inner strength, one's own responsibility to look after one's own well being (i.e , spiritual, mental, physical, etc), one's own ability to be a good person in society,  is by far more important than any system. This is true regardless of what system is in place in a given country - whether it is Far left, center, far-right, communist, free market, mixed economy, etc. Both capitalism and government are important, and are needed, but self-reliance, as much as one can do, is most important.

Thank you as always for listening, and I wish you all the best.

Vik

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/RadicalCentrism/9848B5F3-B56D-42A6-8C39-E6DDD5D5DAEC%40gmail.com.

[Ernest Prabhakar]

Hi Vik,

On Jul 22, 2026, at 4:29 PM, Beaches & Nature fan <mountai...@gmail.com> wrote:

1). Understand the true value of doing good. As Milton Friedman once said, in order to do true good, one must be free to do that good. In other words, do a good act because you have sincere intentions from the heart. Don't do a good act just because government tells you to. That's not true good at all, it's just compliance. Apply this in your daily life in all you do.

I must confess, I have always been confused by this sentiment:

> do a good act because you have sincere intentions

Are you saying: “only” do a good act when you have sincere intentions?

Or: “only avoid evil if you can do it sincerely”?

And really, while we can be consciously insincere, I’m not sure I can ever be sure I am honestly sincere, vs subconsciously trying to make myself feel or look good. 

Can you?

— Ernie P.

[Ernest Prabhakar]

This begs the question:

- is “true good” different than “social good”?  If so, which is more valuable, when?

— Ernie P.

On Jul 24, 2026, at 3:41 AM, Beaches & Nature fan <mountai...@gmail.com> wrote:

I definitely understand what you are saying. If people do a good act, they are not necessarily consciously thinking about it. They are not consciously saying "I am doing a good act" in their mind. They just do it. And yes perhaps I didn't need to put the word "intention" in my sentence: after all they do say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. 

So I will re-state my first bullet takeaway point with the following:

1). Understand the true value of doing good. As Milton Friedman once said, in order to do true good, one must be free to do that good. Therefore, doing a good act just because the government tells you to, is not true, authentic good at all, it's just compliance. 

Bestest,

Vik

[Ernest Prabhakar]

Hi Vik

On Jul 25, 2026, at 8:27 AM, Beaches & Nature fan <mountai...@gmail.com> wrote:

Social good - I think this has a lot of definitions. What is your definition of social good?

I see it as a dynamic interplay of character, community, and reality.  

You maybe particularly interested in my “psychology of virtue”

— ERnie P.

[Beaches & Nature fan]

I definitely understand what you are saying. If people do a good act, they are not necessarily consciously thinking about it. They are not consciously saying "I am doing a good act" in their mind. They just do it. And yes perhaps I didn't need to put the word "intention" in my sentence: after all they do say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. 

So I will re-state my first bullet takeaway point with the following:

1). Understand the true value of doing good. As Milton Friedman once said, in order to do true good, one must be free to do that good. Therefore, doing a good act just because the government tells you to, is not true, authentic good at all, it's just compliance. 

Bestest,

Vik

[Beaches & Nature fan]

Social good - I think this has a lot of definitions. What is your definition of social good?

[Beaches & Nature fan]

Very good document, I will look into it.

And yes, social good fits into my revised sentence on Takeaway#1. I don't see social good as an "un-true" good. So, therefore, it fits fine, into my first takeaway.