3 ms·
"Is [Abstraction A] a threat to [Abstraction B]?" No. Human beings who put money and control of land and resources over and above the welfare of other human be
by hapnin 8y ago
"Is [Abstraction A] a threat to [Abstraction B]?"
No. Human beings who put money and control of land and resources over and above the welfare of other human beings are a threat to us all and always have been.
I wish sociopathic hypergreedy control freaks were viewed the same way we perceive pedophiles instead of being rewarded.
- vertexFarm 8y agoI'm confused as to why you think that just because two concepts are abstract they can't interact with each other. How do you explain that logic? Do we claim that capitalism cannot produce hyper-greedy sociopaths? Because I would argue that it distills those people better than most systems. We need some form of modified capitalism which has some checks and balances. We did have that system for a long while, but the controlling agencies got captured by private interests and we can all plainly see the risk involved there. But it's pure capitalism. People who say pure capitalism would have an even playing field discount the possibility that the winners on that level playing field would change the playing field to benefit them forever. What is keeping the playing field level? Not the market. The market doesn't limit systemic drift.
- hapnin 8y agoMy point is that abstracting practical human evil to an "ism" removes responsibility from the actors who commit the evil.
- ksk 8y agoCapitalism self-selects for those hypergreedy people. Thankfully, a lot of humans are social animals interested in welfare of other humans, and society at large. A Welfare component is required to offset people harmed by the excess of capitalism.