3 ms·

The community has always decided the wealth distribution in society. It is not some "invisible hand" that controls it. The wealth distribution, as it exists tod

by wz1000 9y ago

The community has always decided the wealth distribution in society. It is not some "invisible hand" that controls it. The wealth distribution, as it exists today, is a result of purposeful decisions starting all the way at the Enclosure of the Commons. The tax code, legal system, concept of property(intellectual and otherwise) etc. are not the result of inevitable market forces ordained by a higher power, they are carefully designed. If the "community" set up these systems(on which these companies are parasitic on), they can change them in a way that benefits the community at large.

sangnoir 9y ago
The "community" == revolving door lobbyists, right? Or am I reading too much into your comment. The average citizen has little say in the rules the so-called "community" designs. As an outsider, it's fascinating to watch the process unfold. The current drum that's being beat by the media is tax-reform. Is this really the most pressing issue? Is the need for reform a given as the media suggests without question (right or left), or are there marching orders from the conglomerate overlords to push for a lucrative agenda?
- wz1000 9y ago
  Yes, decision making power has been hijacked from the population at large and put into the hands of a few. But the point I was trying to make was that these are still just decisions made by somebody, decisions that can change(or be forced to change). They are not the result of some inevitable process that it is foolish to try to change, as is often claimed by proponents of "free" markets etc. There is no "natural" distribution of wealth and resources that will be undermined by redistribution, because the current distribution of wealth is itself the result of hundreds of years of redistribution, from the commons into private hands, from the third world into the first, and from the disenfranchised to the wealthy.
- ethbro 9y ago
  > The average citizen has little say in the rules the so-called "community" designs. I think sometimes there's a commingling of "the system is complex" and "an individual is powerless" in recent political narratives, to the detriment of hope. The "system" (by which I mean elected politicians, lobbyists, campaign contributions, the Illuminati, etc) is ultimately grounded in popular will. Clinton lost because people were upset. I'm not denying regulatory capture, revolving door lobbying, and corporate interests aren't part of the system. But you know what else is? Local primaries. Local executive officials (school board, mayor, etc). Visiting your congressperson and framing your issues in a way that speaks to them. Making campaign contributions. I think it's too easy to nihilistically say "the game is hard, therefore I'm not going to play." Bullshit. The democracy game is as it has always been (and a helluva lot less corrupt now than in previous centuries). But all that's required for evil to triumph is that good people don't engage.

by wz1000 9y ago

sangnoir 9y ago

The "community" == revolving door lobbyists, right? Or am I reading too much into your comment. The average citizen has little say in the rules the so-called "community" designs. As an outsider, it's fascinating to watch the process unfold. The current drum that's being beat by the media is tax-reform. Is this really the most pressing issue? Is the need for reform a given as the media suggests without question (right or left), or are there marching orders from the conglomerate overlords to push for a lucrative agenda?

wz1000 9y ago
Yes, decision making power has been hijacked from the population at large and put into the hands of a few. But the point I was trying to make was that these are still just decisions made by somebody, decisions that can change(or be forced to change). They are not the result of some inevitable process that it is foolish to try to change, as is often claimed by proponents of "free" markets etc. There is no "natural" distribution of wealth and resources that will be undermined by redistribution, because the current distribution of wealth is itself the result of hundreds of years of redistribution, from the commons into private hands, from the third world into the first, and from the disenfranchised to the wealthy.
ethbro 9y ago
> The average citizen has little say in the rules the so-called "community" designs. I think sometimes there's a commingling of "the system is complex" and "an individual is powerless" in recent political narratives, to the detriment of hope. The "system" (by which I mean elected politicians, lobbyists, campaign contributions, the Illuminati, etc) is ultimately grounded in popular will. Clinton lost because people were upset. I'm not denying regulatory capture, revolving door lobbying, and corporate interests aren't part of the system. But you know what else is? Local primaries. Local executive officials (school board, mayor, etc). Visiting your congressperson and framing your issues in a way that speaks to them. Making campaign contributions. I think it's too easy to nihilistically say "the game is hard, therefore I'm not going to play." Bullshit. The democracy game is as it has always been (and a helluva lot less corrupt now than in previous centuries). But all that's required for evil to triumph is that good people don't engage.