4 ms·

“ 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

“ 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
All valid points. We have certainly never perfected this union. But we have been in different places and at different degrees over time. Of late, I think capture by special interests as an expressed ethos has escalated with regard to modern history. It's an active turn away from even those ideals. Citizens United and all that. But, here, I am speaking more about the ideal. And regardless of what we do at the grassroots level, there will need to be some degree of societal organization to provide for common welfare, safety, enforce rights, etc. Even at its minimum, it becomes a powerful enterprise. We need to ensure we control that, if for no other reason than that power begets more power and we're back to where we started. To a very real degree those powerful interests you mentioned want us to give up on this government project. I do agree, however, that the state is a "big awkward tool" in its current incarnation. I just argue that it's worthwhile to improve it versus abandon it. >How can we make our whole economy like that? It starts with finding enough like-minded people who are willing to do some work. And that starts with a vision that people can connect with. But one big challenge is the current design makes it such that so many people are concerned with subsistence, they have little time for creating change. So there's a chicken and egg problem there.

unclebucknasty 6y ago

All valid points. We have certainly never perfected this union. But we have been in different places and at different degrees over time. Of late, I think capture by special interests as an expressed ethos has escalated with regard to modern history. It's an active turn away from even those ideals. Citizens United and all that. But, here, I am speaking more about the ideal. And regardless of what we do at the grassroots level, there will need to be some degree of societal organization to provide for common welfare, safety, enforce rights, etc. Even at its minimum, it becomes a powerful enterprise. We need to ensure we control that, if for no other reason than that power begets more power and we're back to where we started. To a very real degree those powerful interests you mentioned want us to give up on this government project. I do agree, however, that the state is a "big awkward tool" in its current incarnation. I just argue that it's worthwhile to improve it versus abandon it. >How can we make our whole economy like that? It starts with finding enough like-minded people who are willing to do some work. And that starts with a vision that people can connect with. But one big challenge is the current design makes it such that so many people are concerned with subsistence, they have little time for creating change. So there's a chicken and egg problem there.