0.1% of all people control 99% of the resources, are you willing to live in a world like this?
|
Poor_hobbit, having discovered that those who enslave others often do so under the disguise of freedom, has decided to side with those who would enslave others with no disguise whatsoever. Yes, poor_hobbit, (most of) us capitalists see that "capitalism" often is code for corporatist wage slavery and "democracy" code for a populace disenfranchised by apathy and mass propaganda. And your solution is, what, hand all power to a centralized elite who will be good this time, they promise?
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Jan 13, 2017, 9:29:28 PM
|
|
|
dont lump democracy together with capitalism, scrotie
doing shit with justification of 'democracy' is arguably worse than doing same thing in the open without pretending to be a democracy. how many countries we invade under the pretense of 'democracy' ? kinda like racism. at least when people tell it to your face you know the deal. in 'democratic' society it is simply said behind your back when you arent looking. and hey, I prefer to know who to punch up front than to parry a backstab which melts into a fake smile when confronted. | |
|
While I understand that democracy and capitalism are distinct, they're complimentary... like salt and pepper, or peanut butter and jelly. Of the two, democracy is the lesser; while economic individualism is the best way to decentralize resource management, representative democracy allows decentralized oversight of tasks that by necessity are centralized... such as stopping capitalism from destroying itself.
To fully clarify my post before this one: as I've said many times on the PoE side of these forums, the general population is very good at feedback and horrible at suggestions — true for both game design and social problems. People can normally agree on the problems, except when they fancy themselves "suggesters" and commit the error of twisting facts to suit suggestions instead of the vice versa. Real experts are the only ones competent to design solutions, because they might see the unintended ramifications of policy in addition to obvious intent. However, the flaw in the centralization argument is that a single person or small group of people can be expert at everything; this is not how specialization plays out in reality, experts are experts only within specific niches of knowledge. A great judicial mind might disagree strongly with a great diplomatic mind, who in turn disagrees strongly with a great economic mind, even if we assume truth is objective and if each is 100% correct within their niche of expertise. Additionally, it's relatively simple for a horrible solution, created by a fake expert, to gain popularity — at least, until it's attempted and the results speak for themselves. In both cases, it is silly to expect the best solutions to be unanimous or even popular among those governing us. This is why centralization is fundamentally wrong, bordering on evil. The single most important form of diversity to embrace is not diversity of skin color or gender, but diversity of skill. This is why socialism — that is, centralized attempt at meritocracy — is half wrong, and communism fully wrong. And it's why true capitalism — free trade between free peoples, without the interference of force or fraud — is fully right, so long as it persists. As I've remarked earlier, pure capitalism doesn't exist long. It lacks safeguard against the purchase of state and press power, the former to enact laws which stifle competitors and thus destroy capitalism, and the latter to replace free speech with propaganda and thus render democracy a farce. In short, big business — that is, centralized economic power — tramples decentralized government and creates centralized government in its place. We see the effects of this in current "capitalist" "democratic" nations like the United States, and Western civilization in general. As I've said before, the key weak spot is the battle between freedom of speech and propaganda. When speech is free, the marketplace of ideas will, with experimentation if nothing else, allow the best ideas to rise; with the best ideas and a strong democratically controlled government, democracy can serve as an effective check on centralized efficient power. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Jan 14, 2017, 3:25:13 AM
|
|
" I didn't reach such conclusion. Capitalism has the tendency to centralize power. It is an inherent characteristics of property and wealth. The most reliable adversary to such centralization of power is an powerful entity, the state itself. I think we both agree Capitalism need to be regulated, but I have a different focus. I do not agree "capitalist" "democratic" nations are democracy, they are representative republic. Although they are choose by the people, they do not have to do what the people want. It result in influence by corporate wealth and government that serve themselves and Capitalism rather than the people. Democracy is not the check and balance, you have election not democracy. The democracy is a farce. The effective check on centralized power is the quality of your government not democracy. If you pick shitty government, you get shitty government. If you pick a good government you get a good one. The trick is knowing which is which. Democracy suck when all the decision makers suck. People keep picking shitty government and don't trust them. Then try to weaken their government power so they can't do anything damaging. You ended up with an impotent government and they can't do shit. |
|
" Yes, obviously. "Let those with infinite free time pave the road with their corpses." - reboticon
|
|
" That isn't a good question. You are born into the capitalism world, you don't pick it. You don't pick which country you are born into. Some people are fortunate that they are born in a safe comfortable environment in a rich wealthy country, other are born in a poor miserable country. If you are the middle class in the richer nation, It isn't such a poor deal. Can't say the same for many people living in poverty in the poor countries. It isn't a choice, it is false equivalence. |
|
|
He who controls the spice controls the universe
|
|
" I'm in Team Harkonnen! | |
" Who said anything about children? I'm just another virgin neckbeard who lives at his mums basement. |
|
|
I've read all of the above. Putting aside cap vs com controversy, I would suggest looking into us or in other words into nature. Natural has models and models, some of them very cruel but undeniable. After all we are creatures, produced by the same mysterious higher intelligence. It has been here for 4.3 billions years. It survived. It didn't make the planet inhabitable. Humans have been here for so short. It will take only slight effort by the nature and we are gone, when it will decide it had enough. Natural models of "society", the means of "containment" or "sustainability" are existing, they can be extrapolated and used in order to achieve long lasting social model.
About the statement of power centralization. It is funny, but in nature centralized models such as ant colonies work very well. Also in human history, centralized power achieved remarkable success, just look at those empires. Very successful in short-term but total disaster in long term. As I said before, my suggestion is GLOBAL COMMUNIST ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE GOVERNMENT /coded by Marxist coders ofc/. Sry, Marx wrote best philosophy so far. Otherwise, I envision death of nations, rise to power by the corporations, corporate interstellar wars and all humans just slaves. Earth gone. |
|
