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.