I’m not asking for sources, it’s a simple logic experiment with a look at history. A decentralized pacifist state is a power vacuum to certain people. We need at least the basic sketch of a larger state and acceptance of organized violence as a method to defend it.
Worrying about sealions on Lemmy in particular is just vanity since one really has the option to move on and ignore, or even block, at will. There is no way to force an answer, but it is perfectly okay to ask politely for one on a forum-like platform.
It’s a dream. Capitalism would be great and completely valid without some greedy fuckers trying to get everything for themselves. Communism would work without some greedy fuckers trying to get everything for themselves. Anarchism would work without… You get the jist.
Our problem is not politics, it’s the human nature. No matter how many loving hippies there are, there are always going to be some people who try to exploit everything for their own good
It inherently incentivizes greed, it’s not built in per se.
As are all traits of the dark triad. This is what makes capitalism the worst choice and really sad. It brings out the worst in us. And those who are better have no chance.
That’s true, in capitalism that we see anyways. But we would be able to get capitalism working just fine if the ultra rich would put their momey for a good use. If they have enough to support themselves, they could use that extra momey to help struggling businnesses and aim the extra monry where its needed more at that point. But that’s never ever going to happem
Greed came long before capitalism. Capitalism is the current way to organize greed.
Wealth disparity has always existed as a result of greed, not capitalism. There have always been extra wealthy and poor. There has always been nobles and serfs. Patricians and plebians. Bourgeoisie and proletariat.
Any system of economic equality cannot exist unless there is a very tight framework around it and people designated to enforce that framework, which, ipso facto, eliminates equality, as that then puts a monopoly on a legal use of force. With a legal use of force, corruption is only a matter of time.
The problem is the human condition of greedy tuckers, so let’s keep political systems which give a few people who want all the power all the power, rather than work towards anarchism where no one gets the power?
Greedy fuckers are going to be making anything worse, but that only means that a complete utopia is impossible, not that all systems are going to be equally bad. Would you argue that the average absolute monarchy would have just as much abuse as your average liberal democracy?
Did I say anything about monarchy or claim that all of the politics are equal? No I just said noke of them work because humans are not going to cooperate on large scale enough with thinking whats good for everyone. Monarchy pretty much just assumes there is a greedy fucker there. And even if he would make a good leader one person is not enough to make all the decisions
Zero tolerance for sophistry, and dedication to non-non-violence when dealing with sealions.
I’m not asking for sources, it’s a simple logic experiment with a look at history. A decentralized pacifist state is a power vacuum to certain people. We need at least the basic sketch of a larger state and acceptance of organized violence as a method to defend it.
Worrying about sealions on Lemmy in particular is just vanity since one really has the option to move on and ignore, or even block, at will. There is no way to force an answer, but it is perfectly okay to ask politely for one on a forum-like platform.
Good luck with that. You may need to substitute all humans with robots.
Interestingly enough, that’s literally the solution for The Culture.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_series
It’s a dream. Capitalism would be great and completely valid without some greedy fuckers trying to get everything for themselves. Communism would work without some greedy fuckers trying to get everything for themselves. Anarchism would work without… You get the jist.
Our problem is not politics, it’s the human nature. No matter how many loving hippies there are, there are always going to be some people who try to exploit everything for their own good
I’m cynical (or old) enough to agree with this sentiment to a point, but capitalism has greed built in, it’s a feature not a flaw.
It inherently incentivizes greed, it’s not built in per se. As are all traits of the dark triad. This is what makes capitalism the worst choice and really sad. It brings out the worst in us. And those who are better have no chance.
You are 100% correct.
Capitalism is greed. Acquire and accumulate at all costs. Hoarding is not just acceptable, but praiseworthy.
That’s true, in capitalism that we see anyways. But we would be able to get capitalism working just fine if the ultra rich would put their momey for a good use. If they have enough to support themselves, they could use that extra momey to help struggling businnesses and aim the extra monry where its needed more at that point. But that’s never ever going to happem
They’d be out-competed by those who used their wealth to screw over the competition and drive small businesses under.
Greed came long before capitalism. Capitalism is the current way to organize greed.
Wealth disparity has always existed as a result of greed, not capitalism. There have always been extra wealthy and poor. There has always been nobles and serfs. Patricians and plebians. Bourgeoisie and proletariat.
Any system of economic equality cannot exist unless there is a very tight framework around it and people designated to enforce that framework, which, ipso facto, eliminates equality, as that then puts a monopoly on a legal use of force. With a legal use of force, corruption is only a matter of time.
The problem is the human condition of greedy tuckers, so let’s keep political systems which give a few people who want all the power all the power, rather than work towards anarchism where no one gets the power?
Greedy fuckers are going to be making anything worse, but that only means that a complete utopia is impossible, not that all systems are going to be equally bad. Would you argue that the average absolute monarchy would have just as much abuse as your average liberal democracy?
Did I say anything about monarchy or claim that all of the politics are equal? No I just said noke of them work because humans are not going to cooperate on large scale enough with thinking whats good for everyone. Monarchy pretty much just assumes there is a greedy fucker there. And even if he would make a good leader one person is not enough to make all the decisions