3 ms·

That is a very specific description of the american voting system. I am not american. I agree that the current models of democratic control are severly and fund

That is a very specific description of the american voting system. I am not american. I agree that the current models of democratic control are severly and fundamentally flawed. But it's frightening to me that you think giving the power to private Billionaires with no democratic legitimization instead is a better solution. This is what people mean when they say Capitalist Libertarianism is a form of Authoritarianism.

beaconstudios 8y ago
I'm also not American, I'm British. We had a direct democratic vote very recently, which (regardless of whether you like the outcome or not) was surrounded by the most irrational propaganda I've ever seen, from both sides of the aisle. If you want more democracy, expect more of that. I'm also not a libertarian nor particularly a capitalist (I prefer syndicalism on a conceptual level), so your characterisation is both incorrect and reductionist. OK so if giving private citizens more power (though I'd phrase it as axing bad regulations) is "scary", what's the worst outcome? Compared to giving more power to the state? Because as far as I'm aware, almost all historical atrocities have been committed by states. The first three billionaires who jump into my head immediately (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos) pioneered personal computing, founded one of the most impactful charities in existence, vastly improved the portability of computing, and commoditised online shopping and started a private space agency. Can you think of anything billionaires have done that doesn't involve political corruption that is really really bad compared to the good that said individual has brought to the world? (without diving into the intricacies of whether people like Carl Icahn provide a net benefit, but I'm pretty against Wall Street and the public stock market anyway).

3 ms·

That is a very specific description of the american voting system. I am not american. I agree that the current models of democratic control are severly and fund

by cyborgx7 8y ago

beaconstudios 8y ago
I'm also not American, I'm British. We had a direct democratic vote very recently, which (regardless of whether you like the outcome or not) was surrounded by the most irrational propaganda I've ever seen, from both sides of the aisle. If you want more democracy, expect more of that. I'm also not a libertarian nor particularly a capitalist (I prefer syndicalism on a conceptual level), so your characterisation is both incorrect and reductionist. OK so if giving private citizens more power (though I'd phrase it as axing bad regulations) is "scary", what's the worst outcome? Compared to giving more power to the state? Because as far as I'm aware, almost all historical atrocities have been committed by states. The first three billionaires who jump into my head immediately (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos) pioneered personal computing, founded one of the most impactful charities in existence, vastly improved the portability of computing, and commoditised online shopping and started a private space agency. Can you think of anything billionaires have done that doesn't involve political corruption that is really really bad compared to the good that said individual has brought to the world? (without diving into the intricacies of whether people like Carl Icahn provide a net benefit, but I'm pretty against Wall Street and the public stock market anyway).