3 ms·

I agree it seems farcicle but it will inevitably creep in regardless with any centralized system, simply as turnover of people's roles to younger overseers with

by than3 3y ago

I agree it seems farcicle but it will inevitably creep in regardless with any centralized system, simply as turnover of people's roles to younger overseers without the benefit of experience occurs. Self-limiting and enforcing limits is not unheard of though usually exceedingly rare. There is such a thing as the rule of law, but as you mentioned when the powerful band together in collusive behavior anything is possible, and its usually for their benefit. The rule of law as we've come to know it generally speaking usually requires appropriate representation with regard to crafting/maintaining those laws but that is not always the case. Also, without maintaining a market which limits currency sufficiently to allow rational price discovery, you run into the Economic Calculation problem which has no solution. A form of it is inflation/deflation curves based on lagging indicators where you whipsaw closer and closer to the margins until one or the other outcome spirals out. Very dynamical. > What we are seeing. >> I don't buy this at all as a key factor We'll have to disagree. Its pretty obvious that previous generations starting at the point of taking the dollar off the gold standard have consistently spent more than revenue (negative cashflow). They've spread the loss in value globally, but its still a loss and worse its in lagging inflation adjusted payouts. The bill always comes due, and the consequences of policies put in place over that time will be paid by generations who had no say in its creation. Debt can be just as coercive when backed by law (austerity measures). Incidentally, a very similar issue came up during the French Revolution (Bastille) at least according to Thomas Paine who wrote about it in passing in his Rights of Man (1770s). That and Common Sense are both very interesting reads if you can make the time. In my opinion, power should be entrusted to the people's representation in a republic with important limitations enforced independently to preserve their responsiveness to the people they represent. For example representatives who spend more than X% of their time on activities other than representation, time for which they are paid by the taxpayer. Or representing/concentrating more than 80,000 people's voting rights in a single person aren't really representing their constituents in any equitable way. Exceeding either of those limits causes their responsibility and duty to fall in furtherance of maintaining their profession.

hayst4ck 3y ago
I'll respond to the substance but you avoided the key question that I think hamstrings your response. Fundamentally you think the problem with America is framed around money and monetary policy. I think the problem with America is framed around power, of which money is one form of, and the middle class and lower class loss of power. power should be entrusted to representatives of the people, but what is the remedy when it is not? Who "enforces independently"?
- than3 3y ago
  Thomas Paine had a few choice words to say in answer your question, though I won't repeat them here. I don't agree with him on that point, but I haven't come across any other practical wisdom that accounts better for how to deal with people who do not give up power willingly. I continue to hope, but then again I'm an eternal optimist at heart. Systems could enforce it independently such as currency indirectly, if you required a funding plan for any proposed program. It does require functioning arms of government though and printing more money than tax revenue obviously not being an option. Corruption would need to be minimized with harsh penalties and not allowing conflicts of interest. Basic stuff.
  - hayst4ck 3y ago
    Then we have come to terms, you understand the awful truth, but are in denial about the reality of it because it is so awful. That awful truth is that we are directly responsible for democracy, and that if everyone shirks that responsibility and that requirement of sacrifice, there can be no democracy. Someone must sacrifice. You cannot have democracy or republic without citizens who live the ideal of "live free or die" or an educated aristocracy that can see the bigger picture and are convinced that they must exercise their power with responsibility. You understand that in the game of prisoners dilemma, if the aristocracy defects and there are no consequences, that choice of defection is a winning strategy. You understandably don't like the answer because you bear responsibility for your half of the strategy, your strategy multiplied over the entire population is the game. It takes an MLK to bear that burden and we have none. I think you underestimate unionization as a 2nd amendment alternative. Unions are not a legal construct, but a power construct. Companies and the economy at large cannot function without labor, and unions purpose are to use this property to get a seat at the negotiation table. Do you think if we start shouting "no taxation without representation" it's going to be easier next year than it is this year? Of course not. Power is consolidating and will continue to do so, and the cost of taking it back is only going to go up unless our aristocracy can sort itself out, which is just "hope as a strategy." If you work in tech it should be obvious that hope is not a strategy. I'm sure the average Russian citizen used hope as a strategy, that's certainly the consequence of inaction. FWIW, you might like the works of yale history professor Timothy Snyder. I think I am more extreme than him, but he is definitely the modern embodiment of the ideals of our founding fathers. He prescribes investing in our institutions as the potential back-pressure on our decay (my choice of word, not his). "On Tyranny" is a great very short book and he also put it on youtube. Very much worth a read/watch. I think you would enjoy Snyder's talks on the "politics of inevitability" (on youtube) and the idea that democracy is something you do, not something you are. Which means democracy is the sum total of actions, culture, and beliefs of a society, not a structure and not a ritual. He would likely critique my post as one advocating for "mob rule." Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig also has some pretty choice words on the state of our democracy and has hope that we can alter it's course via education and campaign finance reform, particularly starting at the local level in an effort to eventually promote it federally.

by than3 3y ago

hayst4ck 3y ago

I'll respond to the substance but you avoided the key question that I think hamstrings your response. Fundamentally you think the problem with America is framed around money and monetary policy. I think the problem with America is framed around power, of which money is one form of, and the middle class and lower class loss of power. power should be entrusted to representatives of the people, but what is the remedy when it is not? Who "enforces independently"?

than3 3y ago
Thomas Paine had a few choice words to say in answer your question, though I won't repeat them here. I don't agree with him on that point, but I haven't come across any other practical wisdom that accounts better for how to deal with people who do not give up power willingly. I continue to hope, but then again I'm an eternal optimist at heart. Systems could enforce it independently such as currency indirectly, if you required a funding plan for any proposed program. It does require functioning arms of government though and printing more money than tax revenue obviously not being an option. Corruption would need to be minimized with harsh penalties and not allowing conflicts of interest. Basic stuff.
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  Then we have come to terms, you understand the awful truth, but are in denial about the reality of it because it is so awful. That awful truth is that we are directly responsible for democracy, and that if everyone shirks that responsibility and that requirement of sacrifice, there can be no democracy. Someone must sacrifice. You cannot have democracy or republic without citizens who live the ideal of "live free or die" or an educated aristocracy that can see the bigger picture and are convinced that they must exercise their power with responsibility. You understand that in the game of prisoners dilemma, if the aristocracy defects and there are no consequences, that choice of defection is a winning strategy. You understandably don't like the answer because you bear responsibility for your half of the strategy, your strategy multiplied over the entire population is the game. It takes an MLK to bear that burden and we have none. I think you underestimate unionization as a 2nd amendment alternative. Unions are not a legal construct, but a power construct. Companies and the economy at large cannot function without labor, and unions purpose are to use this property to get a seat at the negotiation table. Do you think if we start shouting "no taxation without representation" it's going to be easier next year than it is this year? Of course not. Power is consolidating and will continue to do so, and the cost of taking it back is only going to go up unless our aristocracy can sort itself out, which is just "hope as a strategy." If you work in tech it should be obvious that hope is not a strategy. I'm sure the average Russian citizen used hope as a strategy, that's certainly the consequence of inaction. FWIW, you might like the works of yale history professor Timothy Snyder. I think I am more extreme than him, but he is definitely the modern embodiment of the ideals of our founding fathers. He prescribes investing in our institutions as the potential back-pressure on our decay (my choice of word, not his). "On Tyranny" is a great very short book and he also put it on youtube. Very much worth a read/watch. I think you would enjoy Snyder's talks on the "politics of inevitability" (on youtube) and the idea that democracy is something you do, not something you are. Which means democracy is the sum total of actions, culture, and beliefs of a society, not a structure and not a ritual. He would likely critique my post as one advocating for "mob rule." Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig also has some pretty choice words on the state of our democracy and has hope that we can alter it's course via education and campaign finance reform, particularly starting at the local level in an effort to eventually promote it federally.