3 ms·

>>It's like we've forgotten how to function as humans in some respect. It is not that we have forgotten, the social and governmental structures have been for

>>It's like we've forgotten how to function as humans in some respect. It is not that we have forgotten, the social and governmental structures have been for a long time pushing for dependence upon corporations / government and less self reliance. Self Reliance is something that is to be socially mocked, "survivalist", "prepper", etc are seen as derogatory terms. Even community level reliance has systemically been rejected in favor of top down corporate and/or national government level programs to provide for people.

redisman 4y ago
I would mainly blame capitalism and globalization. It’s very hard to stick to your principles when you can get everything for a 10th of the price/effort from Walmart. It’s also completely impossible to be self reliant in any mid sized or bigger metro area because you just don’t have enough land to produce food and energy.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  globalism sure... capitalism... that would require a more nuance explanation of what you mean by "capitalism" since that is huge subject often misused by people that do no understand that all ownership of private capital and means of production is "capitalism" under which there can be good and bad effects. So blaming "capitalism" for anything likely means the person is ignorant on the topic of economics, or is speaking about one type of capitalism (say corporatism, or crony capitalism) capitalism as an economic system is a foundation for liberty, one can not have a free society with out capitalism in some form.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    > since that is huge subject often misused by people that do no understand that all ownership of private capital and means of production is "capitalism" under which there can be good and bad effects. I would argue that this misses the point. Capitalism isn't just a pile of physical capital. If it was, it would be impossible to result in oppression since physical capital must be maintained and it can be reproduced. Nobody would have any right to complain. Just think about it, would you be jealous of Jeff Bezoz' maintenance bill for his mega yacht? No, you are "jealous" that he has exclusive monopoly rights that restrict your own rights and perhaps even doom you to poverty. It would be more appropriate to call "capitalism" the obsession to put the interests of capital and its owners above all other interests. This means, capital should be allowed to override the basic needs of other humans. Capital should have the right to deny others the ability to obtain shelter or food. Because of capital it should be possible to deny others the ability to trade or be employed. >capitalism as an economic system is a foundation for liberty, one can not have a free society with out capitalism in some form. Now you have trapped yourself inside a network of contradictions. If capital overrides all your decisions, how can you consider yourself free? How can a society where only one special groups interests are being heard, call itself free? No, instead of doubling down on taking ever more people's rights away, we should be doing the opposite. We should be striving to give everyone the ability to help themselves, decide for themselves and to live their lives according to the best of their abilities. This is where the paths diverge. You are confusing market economies with capitalism, which is merely a perversion of market economies. A free market is inherently anti-capitalist because it values the freedoms of its participants over any special interest groups. A free market inherently denies capital the ability to deny other people the ability to obtain shelter or food. It inherently denies capital the ability to prevent others from trading and forcing them into unemployment. No, a free market isn't free as in gratis. It's free as in freedom.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      >>It would be more appropriate to call "capitalism" the obsession to put the interests of capital and its owners above all other interests. This means, capital should be allowed to override the basic needs of other humans. Capital should have the right to deny others the ability to obtain shelter or food. Completely incorrect, unless you completely perverse the idea of capitalism which I suspect you are attempting with disingenuous argumentation and emotional rhetoric Capitalism, on its own, does not result in "oppression" as that requires external non-economic factors often based around government for oppression to occur. Also I am not jealous Jeff Bezoz, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, or any other rich person at all, in either strawman you have presented here >>If capital overrides all your decisions, how can you consider yourself free? How can a society where only one special groups interests are being heard, call itself free? I have not contradicted myself at all, you have massively over reached and attributed positions to me well outside that of my comment. Further you have now confused capitalism, an economic system, with government power. The only way for "only one special groups interests are being heard" would be for government to impose that restriction upon the population, that has nothing to do with capitalism. >>You are confusing market economies with capitalism Market economies, including Free Market Economies are part of a capitalist economic system, so if you believe they are not I point you back to my original comment. A Free Market is capitalism, So is Crony Capitalism, but Crony Capitalism is not a Free Market. Stated Differently, All free markets are capitalist economies, but not all capitalist economies are Free Markets. I support free market capitalism
Nasrudith 4y ago
It isn't some vast conspiracy, it is that specialization by definition does it better. Literal cottage industry couldn't compete. That is what being able to buy better tools and outcomes gets you, industrialization. Memetically people are still pissed off about the change centuries later.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  Specialization for sure is part of the equation, but I dont think it is the full picture. Also to get to a dependency problem one does not have to claim a vast conspiracy, often created as unintended consequence of well meaning government programs, or policy shifts that create incentives for corporations to act in a manner that the result is a dependency instead of self reliance. In the context here specialization means people are not sustenance farming working 16 hours a day creating 100% of their food themselves, however the other extreme of this is total dependence of your food from outside of your region, and the ability to prep, cook, etc you food to others. There is a balance there, where by a person may not grow all of their food, but has a garden (even in indoor garden) to grow some things... Or buys from local farms, and learns how to cook their own meals instead of total dependence on prepared meals either from the store (i.e tv dinners etc) or from restaurants / fast food... I know a lot of people where more than 80% of their food intake is cooked prepared for them, and the 20% that is "from scratch" cooking is like bacon and eggs level cooking... That is with out getting into direct dependency on government...
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  Sure. Until the MBA-ification made sure everything runs as lean as possible… and then everyone wonders where supply chain issues are getting worse.
- yourapostasy 4y ago
  > Memetically people are still pissed off about the change centuries later. Because specialization gave up autonomy, with zero corresponding accountability in return, so capital holders got most of the upside with none of the downside once positioned as too big to fail, and dependent stakeholders got short-term time resource benefits while their grandchildren onwards got exposed to oligopolistic pricing power, and externalities like fragile supply chain ramifications pushed upon them. Snarking like this in shallow analyses is exactly what Soros warned about with reflexivity.

redisman 4y ago

I would mainly blame capitalism and globalization. It’s very hard to stick to your principles when you can get everything for a 10th of the price/effort from Walmart. It’s also completely impossible to be self reliant in any mid sized or bigger metro area because you just don’t have enough land to produce food and energy.

phpisthebest 4y ago
globalism sure... capitalism... that would require a more nuance explanation of what you mean by "capitalism" since that is huge subject often misused by people that do no understand that all ownership of private capital and means of production is "capitalism" under which there can be good and bad effects. So blaming "capitalism" for anything likely means the person is ignorant on the topic of economics, or is speaking about one type of capitalism (say corporatism, or crony capitalism) capitalism as an economic system is a foundation for liberty, one can not have a free society with out capitalism in some form.
- imtringued 4y ago
  > since that is huge subject often misused by people that do no understand that all ownership of private capital and means of production is "capitalism" under which there can be good and bad effects. I would argue that this misses the point. Capitalism isn't just a pile of physical capital. If it was, it would be impossible to result in oppression since physical capital must be maintained and it can be reproduced. Nobody would have any right to complain. Just think about it, would you be jealous of Jeff Bezoz' maintenance bill for his mega yacht? No, you are "jealous" that he has exclusive monopoly rights that restrict your own rights and perhaps even doom you to poverty. It would be more appropriate to call "capitalism" the obsession to put the interests of capital and its owners above all other interests. This means, capital should be allowed to override the basic needs of other humans. Capital should have the right to deny others the ability to obtain shelter or food. Because of capital it should be possible to deny others the ability to trade or be employed. >capitalism as an economic system is a foundation for liberty, one can not have a free society with out capitalism in some form. Now you have trapped yourself inside a network of contradictions. If capital overrides all your decisions, how can you consider yourself free? How can a society where only one special groups interests are being heard, call itself free? No, instead of doubling down on taking ever more people's rights away, we should be doing the opposite. We should be striving to give everyone the ability to help themselves, decide for themselves and to live their lives according to the best of their abilities. This is where the paths diverge. You are confusing market economies with capitalism, which is merely a perversion of market economies. A free market is inherently anti-capitalist because it values the freedoms of its participants over any special interest groups. A free market inherently denies capital the ability to deny other people the ability to obtain shelter or food. It inherently denies capital the ability to prevent others from trading and forcing them into unemployment. No, a free market isn't free as in gratis. It's free as in freedom.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    >>It would be more appropriate to call "capitalism" the obsession to put the interests of capital and its owners above all other interests. This means, capital should be allowed to override the basic needs of other humans. Capital should have the right to deny others the ability to obtain shelter or food. Completely incorrect, unless you completely perverse the idea of capitalism which I suspect you are attempting with disingenuous argumentation and emotional rhetoric Capitalism, on its own, does not result in "oppression" as that requires external non-economic factors often based around government for oppression to occur. Also I am not jealous Jeff Bezoz, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, or any other rich person at all, in either strawman you have presented here >>If capital overrides all your decisions, how can you consider yourself free? How can a society where only one special groups interests are being heard, call itself free? I have not contradicted myself at all, you have massively over reached and attributed positions to me well outside that of my comment. Further you have now confused capitalism, an economic system, with government power. The only way for "only one special groups interests are being heard" would be for government to impose that restriction upon the population, that has nothing to do with capitalism. >>You are confusing market economies with capitalism Market economies, including Free Market Economies are part of a capitalist economic system, so if you believe they are not I point you back to my original comment. A Free Market is capitalism, So is Crony Capitalism, but Crony Capitalism is not a Free Market. Stated Differently, All free markets are capitalist economies, but not all capitalist economies are Free Markets. I support free market capitalism

Nasrudith 4y ago

It isn't some vast conspiracy, it is that specialization by definition does it better. Literal cottage industry couldn't compete. That is what being able to buy better tools and outcomes gets you, industrialization. Memetically people are still pissed off about the change centuries later.

phpisthebest 4y ago
Specialization for sure is part of the equation, but I dont think it is the full picture. Also to get to a dependency problem one does not have to claim a vast conspiracy, often created as unintended consequence of well meaning government programs, or policy shifts that create incentives for corporations to act in a manner that the result is a dependency instead of self reliance. In the context here specialization means people are not sustenance farming working 16 hours a day creating 100% of their food themselves, however the other extreme of this is total dependence of your food from outside of your region, and the ability to prep, cook, etc you food to others. There is a balance there, where by a person may not grow all of their food, but has a garden (even in indoor garden) to grow some things... Or buys from local farms, and learns how to cook their own meals instead of total dependence on prepared meals either from the store (i.e tv dinners etc) or from restaurants / fast food... I know a lot of people where more than 80% of their food intake is cooked prepared for them, and the 20% that is "from scratch" cooking is like bacon and eggs level cooking... That is with out getting into direct dependency on government...
SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
Sure. Until the MBA-ification made sure everything runs as lean as possible… and then everyone wonders where supply chain issues are getting worse.
yourapostasy 4y ago
> Memetically people are still pissed off about the change centuries later. Because specialization gave up autonomy, with zero corresponding accountability in return, so capital holders got most of the upside with none of the downside once positioned as too big to fail, and dependent stakeholders got short-term time resource benefits while their grandchildren onwards got exposed to oligopolistic pricing power, and externalities like fragile supply chain ramifications pushed upon them. Snarking like this in shallow analyses is exactly what Soros warned about with reflexivity.