Categorization

This is yet another article which, after reading, you will find that nothing has been gained.

In terms of current political positions, the categorization of “liberal” and “conservative” are deeply troublesome and practically inefficient.

Yes, there is a polarization of the political spectrum with these two terms as the “poles”. While the political pattern of demographics gravitating toward two opposing ideologies are common, and is what caused these two broad categorizations in the first place, the existence of these two categories is contributing to further polarization. This is the troubling aspect.

As for inefficiency, swiping someone or some group under either “liberal” or “conservative” category simply has too much room for misunderstandings. After all, a “conservative” in Maryland and a “conservative” in South Carolina have very different views; but on the national level, they are both the same. There are also the constant “I am fiscally liberal/conservative, BUT I am socially the opposite” clarifications that are lost in translation.

Furthermore, while the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are supposed to be “ideological”, the topics which their representatives argue about are extremely practical, hardly ideological, and in some cases, not ideologically-derived at all.

For example, why do conservatives (some of them~) supposedly shun abortion and unite under the “pro-life” banner? Is it the classic intertwinement of conservative demographics and religious devotion? But isn’t the popular conservative ideology one of small government, and that government should stay out of private bodily matters? Planned Parenthood is, after all, a non-governmental organization. Why should government interfere with its operations? On the liberal side, practical policy issues branded under “progressivism” are even more numerous, but I digress.

And so, let’s not categorize, but compartmentalize.

Compartmentalization

The way I see it, a government’s functions are:

Primary Functions: Citizen well-being

1. Food
2. Water
3. Shelter
4. Entertainment
5. Healthcare

After making a system (called a “country”) to provide the above five amenities, the government then needs to protect this system. This protection of human well-being/safety can come in these forms:

Secondary Functions:

1. Military
2. Preserving the environment
3. Education; providing education to citizens enables the system to improve continuously

You see, on deciding the approaches to providing these functions, a person could have totally different views for each of them. This person could decide that government shouldn’t interfere with food provisions, as private entities could provide better quality food to the wealthy, and mediocre quality food to the poor. Standardization of food by the government could mean everyone gets mediocre quality food, as that would, in fact, be the definition of “mediocre”.

At the same time, this person could also decide that water provision should be standardized by the government, as water generally tastes the same regardless, and as long as the pipes carrying them aren’t leaking lead, then there is really no need for private water companies.

To please this single person, a candidate would need to fit an implausible set of opinions: e.g. private food provision; public water system; private housing development but also a bit of government housing projects; impose air-wave/internet regulations; universal healthcare but combined with more premium options separate from employee benefits; military no draft, accepts all citizens, less funding; carbon-tax, electric cars; charter school is okay, higher funding for public schools.

Everyone could have different views on each of these functions, and the sheer combinatoric of potential permutations suggest one solution:

Instead of electing a group of politicians who more or less fit the set of opinions that is ideal to only a tiny portion of voters, government appointments could be more issue based.

For example, there could be an executive or legislative body in charge of housing provision exclusively, and their positions are determined by voters who vote specifically for that issue. A voter would see a ballot that list all those functions above, and all proposed approaches to those functions, and select their own desired approach to each one. This would generate eight groups of politicians who can be sure that their approach on a single issue has the dominant support of the country.

EXCEPT

Except! Ah, but which function should get the most funding? Would a funding committee have to be set up? Would the voters be required to fill out their proposed funding percentage for each functions? But surely this could be hugely problematic as the winner of each functions could end up with inadequate funding.

And so, I irresponsibly propose a much easier, nihilistic, yet hedonistic solution:

Robots

(I will come back to that)

Jobs

One thing both “liberals” and “conservatives” (i.e. taken together, apparently comprising of 100% of the U.S. population) seem to agree on is: “jobs are good.”

Yes. Both sides seem to agree that jobs are great, we need jobs, and we need more of them, quick. They just disagree on how those jobs should be created; or rather, who should create those jobs. If the government creates jobs, then the government could become too bloated. If the private sector creates jobs, then the government shouldn’t tax the sector as much.

But do we really need jobs?

A economy’s goal is maximum productivity. You see, traditionally, a productive economy is where every participant is, well, participating. If humans participate in an economy and produces things to sell to each other, then the economy is productive. If every human participates and produces things, then the economy is very productive.

Okay, but what if robots produce things for us?

1. Food (Farming, processing, cooking, distribution can all be automated)
2. Water (Easily automated)
3. Shelter (Construction based on previous designs, with some degree of urban planning = automated)
4. Entertainment (Kinda hard. Humans can do those if they want)
5. Healthcare (Doctors. Machines. What’s the difference)
6. Military (Drones)
7. Preserving the environment (Logistics & processing = automated)
8. Education; providing education to citizens enables the system to improve continuously (This one depends)

What would humans do then?

Wake up, go sit on a patch of grass in the park, read a book or something. Go home and play videogames. That’s it, really.

Sure, I understand people want to do things. A carpenter would want to make an artisan piece of woodwork and be proud of it. But why must pride come in the form of money? Get the wood from an enthusiastic woodcutter for free. Make something. Don’t try to sell it, bring it to the park and receive lots of amazed praises on the weirwood lining.

The books and videogames would all be free; entertainment is free. After all, why would authors and game designers and actors need to charge any money, if they can receive everything else for free?

Is “art by financial desperation” really much better than “art by recreation”?