8 ms·

I disagree. Greed and malice are just consequences of an unfair society. The more the people know that rules don't apply to the powerful, then the more the peo

I disagree. Greed and malice are just consequences of an unfair society. The more the people know that rules don't apply to the powerful, then the more the people try to climb the social ladder to become the powerful. Ideally, on a fair system, you are respected because of your skills or your contributions to society. On an unfair one, you are respected because you have a higher hierarchy than them and nothing more. My concern with western people criticizing non-western and non-democratic countries is that, aside from some exceptions like South Korea, Costa Rica or Japan, unfair societies that adopted the western-style model of democratic government didn't become more fair in average. On the contrary, western societies got more unfair over time.

throwaway290 5y ago
Then feel free to disagree. > then the more the people try to climb the social ladder to become the powerful. This happens with people who are deeply insecure. They need to climb the ladder to secure themselves. Greed, power greed, malice comes from insecurity. If you grow up in a world where everyone is respected and everyone feels secure, your parents didn't hurt you, you were not bullied at school, etc., then the only reason for you to strive to secure yourself at the expense of others is if you have grounds to believe others have such issues and will take advantage of you. > Ideally, on a fair system, you are respected because of your skills or your contributions to society No. You are respected. Period. Everyone is. As an aside, capitalism does not make a statement what you should or should not be respected for. We are arguing about something else.
- frostwarrior 5y ago
  > This happens with people who are deeply insecure. They need to climb the ladder to secure themselves. Greed, power greed, malice comes from insecurity. > If you grow up in a world where everyone is respected and everyone feels secure, your parents didn't hurt you, you were not bullied at school, etc., then the only reason for you to strive to secure yourself at the expense of others is if you have grounds to believe others have such issues and will take advantage of you. The world is insecure by itself. Security is ensured through working institutions and organizations. And that, sadly, happens way more rarely than people in developed nations think. In most countries in the world, the institutions are not strong, and the rule of law is relative. Specially to the rich and powerful. In a society where institutions can't give you security, where there are no ladders to become respected in a legit and ethical way, then malice will be rampant. Because, in that context, that's the only way.
  - throwaway290 5y ago
    The world is not insecure by default. I can't even understand the semantics of that statement. We are talking about actors in human society. Humans are insecure, not the world. Humans are insecure, because humans are hurt. (By other humans, who are trying to secure themselves because they were hurt once, and so on the cycle goes.)
    - frostwarrior 5y ago
      The whole concept of the state (and the government as the current people representing it) is to give people a sense of belonging and heavily influences how society works in their territory. What you label as unethical, insecure or malicious, may be normal life for a person living in, say, Middle East or Subsaharan Africa. Not everyone is born into a context where they can thrive by themselves without hurting anyone else. And we shouldn't assume that everyone has a legit path laid out for them so they can be succesful without being malicious. In corrupt countries, either you become corrupt or you resign any possibility to achieve anything.
      - throwaway290 5y ago
        Thanks. You basically are restating my point. The world is full of circumstances in which people hurt other people, in a vicious circle where people grow up with insecurities and try to secure themselves at the expense of others. In a free market that expresses itself as abusing the law, meaning regulations are necessary. Subtract our issues that cause us to abuse our fellow humans and our environment, and capitalism is the way to peacefully coexist while keeping making progress.
        Kinrany 5y ago
        Free market will work in a post-scarcity society, sure.
- frostwarrior 5y ago
  > As an aside, capitalism does not make a statement what you should or should not be respected for. We are arguing about something else. Yeah, but some people think that socialist countries are unfair only because they are socialist. They believe that turning those countries into liberal democracies will make those countries more fair. And Russia is the perfect example of why that doesn't happen.
  - throwaway290 5y ago
    I believe there is no example of a socialist country that is not also a de-facto dictatorship, and I believe if there is a rule by a minority with no democratic election process then it is indeed unfair.
    - orwin 5y ago
      The nordic countries are though? I'd say i would consider any country were the state expenditure account for more than 50% of GDP socialist. And any company where the workers own more than 50% of the share communist (those exist). Unless we have different definition? Edit: I'm not opposing socialism to capitalism though. For me capitalism is that the capital own the means of production, aka: more than 50% of the shares belong to investors, not workers.
      - throwaway290 5y ago
        Yes, we have different definitions. I meant capitalism in the most layperson's definition: a system where you sell something and I buy something from you, then you take that money and go to the milkman and buy yourself cheese. As opposed to a system where people work for some fixed minority, and then that fixed minority distributes the outcome across everybody. (Of course, keeping the bigger chunk to itself.)
    - frostwarrior 5y ago
      Of course. Thing is, considering all socialist countries that transitioned to democracy, how many of them became fairer and with less corruption?
- orwin 5y ago
  > This happens with people who are deeply insecure. I hugely disagree here. You can feel insecure and try to better yourself. Alternatively, i've seen very secure people (financially at least) being at the apex of self-justifying greed. The number of people who try to buy a conscience or justify "their" spot in this world by whichever myth they suscribe to is way too high. Way too high.
  - throwaway290 5y ago
    You are looking at the topmost layer and missing most of my point. Extreme financial security, especially self-made, is often compensating for insecurity.

throwaway290 5y ago

Then feel free to disagree. > then the more the people try to climb the social ladder to become the powerful. This happens with people who are deeply insecure. They need to climb the ladder to secure themselves. Greed, power greed, malice comes from insecurity. If you grow up in a world where everyone is respected and everyone feels secure, your parents didn't hurt you, you were not bullied at school, etc., then the only reason for you to strive to secure yourself at the expense of others is if you have grounds to believe others have such issues and will take advantage of you. > Ideally, on a fair system, you are respected because of your skills or your contributions to society No. You are respected. Period. Everyone is. As an aside, capitalism does not make a statement what you should or should not be respected for. We are arguing about something else.

frostwarrior 5y ago
> This happens with people who are deeply insecure. They need to climb the ladder to secure themselves. Greed, power greed, malice comes from insecurity. > If you grow up in a world where everyone is respected and everyone feels secure, your parents didn't hurt you, you were not bullied at school, etc., then the only reason for you to strive to secure yourself at the expense of others is if you have grounds to believe others have such issues and will take advantage of you. The world is insecure by itself. Security is ensured through working institutions and organizations. And that, sadly, happens way more rarely than people in developed nations think. In most countries in the world, the institutions are not strong, and the rule of law is relative. Specially to the rich and powerful. In a society where institutions can't give you security, where there are no ladders to become respected in a legit and ethical way, then malice will be rampant. Because, in that context, that's the only way.
- throwaway290 5y ago
  The world is not insecure by default. I can't even understand the semantics of that statement. We are talking about actors in human society. Humans are insecure, not the world. Humans are insecure, because humans are hurt. (By other humans, who are trying to secure themselves because they were hurt once, and so on the cycle goes.)
  - frostwarrior 5y ago
    The whole concept of the state (and the government as the current people representing it) is to give people a sense of belonging and heavily influences how society works in their territory. What you label as unethical, insecure or malicious, may be normal life for a person living in, say, Middle East or Subsaharan Africa. Not everyone is born into a context where they can thrive by themselves without hurting anyone else. And we shouldn't assume that everyone has a legit path laid out for them so they can be succesful without being malicious. In corrupt countries, either you become corrupt or you resign any possibility to achieve anything.
    - throwaway290 5y ago
      Thanks. You basically are restating my point. The world is full of circumstances in which people hurt other people, in a vicious circle where people grow up with insecurities and try to secure themselves at the expense of others. In a free market that expresses itself as abusing the law, meaning regulations are necessary. Subtract our issues that cause us to abuse our fellow humans and our environment, and capitalism is the way to peacefully coexist while keeping making progress.
      - Kinrany 5y ago
        Free market will work in a post-scarcity society, sure.
frostwarrior 5y ago
> As an aside, capitalism does not make a statement what you should or should not be respected for. We are arguing about something else. Yeah, but some people think that socialist countries are unfair only because they are socialist. They believe that turning those countries into liberal democracies will make those countries more fair. And Russia is the perfect example of why that doesn't happen.
- throwaway290 5y ago
  I believe there is no example of a socialist country that is not also a de-facto dictatorship, and I believe if there is a rule by a minority with no democratic election process then it is indeed unfair.
  - orwin 5y ago
    The nordic countries are though? I'd say i would consider any country were the state expenditure account for more than 50% of GDP socialist. And any company where the workers own more than 50% of the share communist (those exist). Unless we have different definition? Edit: I'm not opposing socialism to capitalism though. For me capitalism is that the capital own the means of production, aka: more than 50% of the shares belong to investors, not workers.
    - throwaway290 5y ago
      Yes, we have different definitions. I meant capitalism in the most layperson's definition: a system where you sell something and I buy something from you, then you take that money and go to the milkman and buy yourself cheese. As opposed to a system where people work for some fixed minority, and then that fixed minority distributes the outcome across everybody. (Of course, keeping the bigger chunk to itself.)
  - frostwarrior 5y ago
    Of course. Thing is, considering all socialist countries that transitioned to democracy, how many of them became fairer and with less corruption?
orwin 5y ago
> This happens with people who are deeply insecure. I hugely disagree here. You can feel insecure and try to better yourself. Alternatively, i've seen very secure people (financially at least) being at the apex of self-justifying greed. The number of people who try to buy a conscience or justify "their" spot in this world by whichever myth they suscribe to is way too high. Way too high.
- throwaway290 5y ago
  You are looking at the topmost layer and missing most of my point. Extreme financial security, especially self-made, is often compensating for insecurity.