4 ms·

A resource allocation system that didn't have this problem should out-compete one that suffers these information masking flaws. So we just need fully automated

A resource allocation system that didn't have this problem should out-compete one that suffers these information masking flaws. So we just need fully automated space communism* to arise once, and it will overwhelm the less effective resource allocation systems. * I'm not expressing an opinion on what this future more effective organization method would look like, just I'm pretty sure it wouldn't create incentives to keep masses of people less effective than they'd otherwise be.

fromthestart 8y ago
>just I'm pretty sure it wouldn't create incentives to keep masses of people less effective than they'd otherwise be. Self-interested authoritarians always have incentive to keep the population controlled, ignorant, and subdued, to preserve their status. The trouble is that in order to establish something like communism, the populace must cede all powers to an extremely authoritatian government, in which case it becomes inevitable that bad actors will co-opt the system for personal gain, which the "proletariat" will be powerless to legally resist, because of the restriction of rights necessary for centrally planned collectivist society. See USSR, DPRK, China, Venuezuala, etc. In becoming absolute arbiters of resource distribution, communism, and extreme socialism, can only exist by removing most of the freedoms that allow citizens to keep governments from being overly tyrannical. This is a sort of emergent progression, and it is a consequence of collective human nature. Just a disclaimer, I'm not arguing that democratic capitalism is perfect either, especially because similar bad, selfish actors can take advantage of this system as well, especially with regulatory capture. However, at least under this system we theoretically have the ability to vote both by ballot and by wallet.
- jchanimal 8y ago
  Trying to stay out of my beliefs here, but I agree authoritarian communism is about as likely to help us as the Koch brothers.

fromthestart 8y ago

>just I'm pretty sure it wouldn't create incentives to keep masses of people less effective than they'd otherwise be. Self-interested authoritarians always have incentive to keep the population controlled, ignorant, and subdued, to preserve their status. The trouble is that in order to establish something like communism, the populace must cede all powers to an extremely authoritatian government, in which case it becomes inevitable that bad actors will co-opt the system for personal gain, which the "proletariat" will be powerless to legally resist, because of the restriction of rights necessary for centrally planned collectivist society. See USSR, DPRK, China, Venuezuala, etc. In becoming absolute arbiters of resource distribution, communism, and extreme socialism, can only exist by removing most of the freedoms that allow citizens to keep governments from being overly tyrannical. This is a sort of emergent progression, and it is a consequence of collective human nature. Just a disclaimer, I'm not arguing that democratic capitalism is perfect either, especially because similar bad, selfish actors can take advantage of this system as well, especially with regulatory capture. However, at least under this system we theoretically have the ability to vote both by ballot and by wallet.

jchanimal 8y ago
Trying to stay out of my beliefs here, but I agree authoritarian communism is about as likely to help us as the Koch brothers.