3 ms·

Responding post-edit. Yes I see what you mean. The slightest move towards government power (healthcare, public health and safety) is called "communist". We tra

Responding post-edit. Yes I see what you mean. The slightest move towards government power (healthcare, public health and safety) is called "communist". We trade with european countries and don't see a problem calling germany and the UK capitalist, but they have state run health care. Yet when a candidate like Bernie Sanders (who would be moderate in Europe) advocates for public health care, he's accused of being a communist. And then I sympathize a great deal with the view of American free market libertarians who feel the state has too much power. The state has been killing innocent people (in great numbers with people of color) since it was founded. Black freedom movements have been systematically and continually destroyed by the state. The war on drugs and mass incarceration are powered by the state. Draconian intellectual property restrictions inhibit innovation. There is much the left could appreciate about the libertarian critique of the state. And left-libertarians like Roderick Long are helping me learn more about where those two worlds can meet. But then I have also really valued the many speeches by Martin Luther King Jr, which you can find on youtube. He was a scholar in addition to a movement leader, and was well aware of problems with the state. And while he did largely advocate for community power, he too saw times the state could be used to quickly alleviate some mass suffering. I feel like we need some base cohesion. A totally atomized society leaves millions on the street even when homes sit empty. I am given the opportunity to make huge sums of money when I know in my core I am no more valuable than any other people around me. I'm becoming less interested in the idea of businesses that make huge sums of money as the measuring stick. What about pursuing companies that can create wealth that can be given away as cheaply as possible? Wikipedia, the Blender Foundation, Prusa Research, Adafruit. All offering their IP for free and only charging for what they cannot digitally duplicate. And how do we secure physical space to lend to the community for free? What if entire shopping centers were community-owned and operated, so businesses could operate for free? And then if we automate things like bread making and food prep, the cost of food goes down. I'm much more interested lately in innovations in making things free, or closer to it. Here's another social housing example I like: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_011314.html https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_articl...

unclebucknasty 6y ago
Largely, yes. What people fail to inject is that, in a Democratic society, government is an expression of the will of the people. Now, there's certainly been some corruption of that ideal, however that is the design. So, with this in mind, the idea that we should diminish government begs the question, "and replace it with what?" Because via massive wealth, control of resources, and other power someone will "rule over us". We see this now with money in politics. They've already chipped away much of the people's claim to government. Still, democratic governments are our collective opportunity to be the ones who rule over ourselves. In that light, having a government that provides the basic neccessities that allow for liberty and the pursuit of happiness should not be considered scary. And, it does not come at the expense of freedom, as some claim. The contrary, actually. So, these arguments about social support being communist, scary, or somehow antithetical to capitalism are misguided. Likewise, when we point out problems with government, such as unjust deaths, etc, these are problems with implementation that need correction. But, some use them as an argument that the government has too much power. The danger of conflating these is that it can lead to people advocating against their own best interests and diminishing their own voices. This is not to say the government should have unlimited power, or even that it doesn't currently have too much power in some cases. Instead, it's to separate the issues. For instance, in all cases where the govt doesn't live up to expectations, is it because it has too much power? Or, is it sometimes the case that it's simply working for too few people or poorly implemented? In any case, I agree that we need new metrics for assessing the value of businesses. A system that places only profits at its center will invariably depart from the broader social good.
- TaylorAlexander 6y ago
  “ Because via massive wealth, control of resources, and other power someone will ‘rule over us’. We see this now with money in politics. They've already chipped away much of the people's claim to government.” I guess I don’t believe this accounting of the story. At least not for the United States. I don’t see it as “we used to have democracy but corruption has tarnished it”. The USA wasn’t founded on democracy in reality - women and people of color couldn’t vote, and it went on like that for 140+ years. It seems very powerful men ruled the country for a long time. What bit of democracy won by the people has been resisted by the state, and still powerful interests rule. Also I think you are saying that if the government doesn’t rule us the wealthy will. Well I think we need to resist all attempts at rule from above. I’d rather focus on bottom-up solutions to bring power to the people. The state is a big awkward tool and I think it has its place, but think of Wikipedia bringing free knowledge to all - that doesn’t rely on the state. How can we make our whole economy like that?

unclebucknasty 6y ago

Largely, yes. What people fail to inject is that, in a Democratic society, government is an expression of the will of the people. Now, there's certainly been some corruption of that ideal, however that is the design. So, with this in mind, the idea that we should diminish government begs the question, "and replace it with what?" Because via massive wealth, control of resources, and other power someone will "rule over us". We see this now with money in politics. They've already chipped away much of the people's claim to government. Still, democratic governments are our collective opportunity to be the ones who rule over ourselves. In that light, having a government that provides the basic neccessities that allow for liberty and the pursuit of happiness should not be considered scary. And, it does not come at the expense of freedom, as some claim. The contrary, actually. So, these arguments about social support being communist, scary, or somehow antithetical to capitalism are misguided. Likewise, when we point out problems with government, such as unjust deaths, etc, these are problems with implementation that need correction. But, some use them as an argument that the government has too much power. The danger of conflating these is that it can lead to people advocating against their own best interests and diminishing their own voices. This is not to say the government should have unlimited power, or even that it doesn't currently have too much power in some cases. Instead, it's to separate the issues. For instance, in all cases where the govt doesn't live up to expectations, is it because it has too much power? Or, is it sometimes the case that it's simply working for too few people or poorly implemented? In any case, I agree that we need new metrics for assessing the value of businesses. A system that places only profits at its center will invariably depart from the broader social good.

TaylorAlexander 6y ago
“ Because via massive wealth, control of resources, and other power someone will ‘rule over us’. We see this now with money in politics. They've already chipped away much of the people's claim to government.” I guess I don’t believe this accounting of the story. At least not for the United States. I don’t see it as “we used to have democracy but corruption has tarnished it”. The USA wasn’t founded on democracy in reality - women and people of color couldn’t vote, and it went on like that for 140+ years. It seems very powerful men ruled the country for a long time. What bit of democracy won by the people has been resisted by the state, and still powerful interests rule. Also I think you are saying that if the government doesn’t rule us the wealthy will. Well I think we need to resist all attempts at rule from above. I’d rather focus on bottom-up solutions to bring power to the people. The state is a big awkward tool and I think it has its place, but think of Wikipedia bringing free knowledge to all - that doesn’t rely on the state. How can we make our whole economy like that?