7 ms·

We just need to stop wealth and money hording, by both individuals and companies. We also have to do more to break the myth that many of these wealthy people e

We just need to stop wealth and money hording, by both individuals and companies. We also have to do more to break the myth that many of these wealthy people earned their wealth, when if any truly did it was a very exception and very small minority.

mistermann 2y ago
> We just need to stop wealth and money hording, by both individuals and companies. To do that, you "just" have to implement a genuine and functional democracy. But to do that, you'd first have to realize that the one you have is not that. This part is not possible.
- DEADMINCE 2y ago
  A democracy is not the answer. Democracy is tyranny of the masses and nothing more. Democracy gave us Jim Crow laws. The answer is tighter regulation and laws, and less kowtowing to corporations and 'evil' countries.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    Do you believe it is possible for the course we are on to be changed, to a degree that is in fact "substantial" (as in, after it had been accomplished, widespread opinion would be "Oh yes, that was substantial, there is no fucking doubt.")? I am beginning to think it is not possible, to put it mildly.
    - DEADMINCE 2y ago
      Oh, I absolutely think it can be changed, but no one would be in favor of the methods needed to change it. The way I see it, if you have an uneducated, irrational population, or being a significant portion of a population, they need to be managed. They shouldn't be having a say in everything, they are not qualified to have a say in most things. They are basically children. They're basically children. So to get there, you need to basically eradicate that population by mandating education, and certain types of education. Those same people are going to resist, but really that's the only way, and you need to do that even if there is a cost.
      - mistermann 2y ago
        On one hand, I quite agree with you. On the other hand: how does one determine who is rational? Once again, you're back to opinion/consensus.
        DEADMINCE 2y ago
        > On the other hand: how does one determine who is rational? Once again, you're back to opinion/consensus. I don't think that has to be the case. There are a lot of objective standards you could apply and tests you can do. For example, as a somewhat bad example, ask people if they trust vaccines or not, and if not why not.
        mistermann 2y ago
        This is actually a good example, because it demonstrates how "rational" people consider (based on the debacle we just went through) probabilistic predictions to equate to binary truth. Except the problem is: if that's how one thinks, one can't see the error in it. Epistemology and non-binary logic are not just complex, they're counterintuitive. However in this case, your excellent "and if not why not qualifier" could possibly save the day...but then it comes down to whether the judge doesn't get it wrong.
        DEADMINCE 2y ago
        My example was to show the lack of ability to think critically or consider evidence in most of the voting population. Not wanting to get the vaccine is not the disqualifier, but the reasons justifying that decision could be.
        mistermann 2y ago
        But who is qualified to be the arbiter of Truth when it comes to the reasoning? Truth and agreement at the abstract level where we're working right now is easy, but the move to the object level is anything but (even though it seems easy).
- namlem 2y ago
  You can't have a functional democracy based on voting and elections, they are too easy to corrupt. We need to transition to sortition and deliberative citizens assemblies.
  - DEADMINCE 2y ago
    You can't have a good functional democracy without an educated and rational population, and there are better solutions in the meantime than waiting for that to manifest.
ttonkytonk 2y ago
We need to bravely search for the truth in all matters.
- DEADMINCE 2y ago
  This seems like a vague comment that doesn't map to mine in any real way. Could you elaborate a little more on your point?
  - ttonkytonk 2y ago
    I believe the real evil is in the conceit of knowledge, and that the gross inequalities of material wealth are actually only symptoms of this. Roughly 2,500 years ago two giants of ethical philosophy appeared on the scene in the form of Socrates (who can be learned about best through Plato's dialogues and Xenophon's underappreciated Socratic works) and Siddartha Guatama (I would recommend Thich Nhat Hanh's Old Path White Clouds as a reasonably unified source of his life and thought). I know bringing those guys up probably seems sentimental, but I have lived experience with poverty, and political "realism" is only beneficial to those who have not as yet suffered the consequences of harmful patterns of behavior. I think Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol illustrates a pretty good path for the exceedingly wealthy to become heroes, but there's this problem of sentiment, isn't there? And yet sentiment is constantly appealed to in all forms of commercial advertising! People don't even know why or how they are here. Siddartha and Socrates' responses were basically that the answers are difficult to articulate or fathom, but the real pressing issue is how best to live life, and their answers were basically to moderate and do no harm or wrong, at least as much as possible, because the real goods are non-material, and to do wrong actually harms the perpetrator more than the victim.

mistermann 2y ago

> We just need to stop wealth and money hording, by both individuals and companies. To do that, you "just" have to implement a genuine and functional democracy. But to do that, you'd first have to realize that the one you have is not that. This part is not possible.

DEADMINCE 2y ago
A democracy is not the answer. Democracy is tyranny of the masses and nothing more. Democracy gave us Jim Crow laws. The answer is tighter regulation and laws, and less kowtowing to corporations and 'evil' countries.
- mistermann 2y ago
  Do you believe it is possible for the course we are on to be changed, to a degree that is in fact "substantial" (as in, after it had been accomplished, widespread opinion would be "Oh yes, that was substantial, there is no fucking doubt.")? I am beginning to think it is not possible, to put it mildly.
  - DEADMINCE 2y ago
    Oh, I absolutely think it can be changed, but no one would be in favor of the methods needed to change it. The way I see it, if you have an uneducated, irrational population, or being a significant portion of a population, they need to be managed. They shouldn't be having a say in everything, they are not qualified to have a say in most things. They are basically children. They're basically children. So to get there, you need to basically eradicate that population by mandating education, and certain types of education. Those same people are going to resist, but really that's the only way, and you need to do that even if there is a cost.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      On one hand, I quite agree with you. On the other hand: how does one determine who is rational? Once again, you're back to opinion/consensus.
      - DEADMINCE 2y ago
        > On the other hand: how does one determine who is rational? Once again, you're back to opinion/consensus. I don't think that has to be the case. There are a lot of objective standards you could apply and tests you can do. For example, as a somewhat bad example, ask people if they trust vaccines or not, and if not why not.
        mistermann 2y ago
        This is actually a good example, because it demonstrates how "rational" people consider (based on the debacle we just went through) probabilistic predictions to equate to binary truth. Except the problem is: if that's how one thinks, one can't see the error in it. Epistemology and non-binary logic are not just complex, they're counterintuitive. However in this case, your excellent "and if not why not qualifier" could possibly save the day...but then it comes down to whether the judge doesn't get it wrong.
        DEADMINCE 2y ago
        My example was to show the lack of ability to think critically or consider evidence in most of the voting population. Not wanting to get the vaccine is not the disqualifier, but the reasons justifying that decision could be.
        mistermann 2y ago
        But who is qualified to be the arbiter of Truth when it comes to the reasoning? Truth and agreement at the abstract level where we're working right now is easy, but the move to the object level is anything but (even though it seems easy).
namlem 2y ago
You can't have a functional democracy based on voting and elections, they are too easy to corrupt. We need to transition to sortition and deliberative citizens assemblies.
- DEADMINCE 2y ago
  You can't have a good functional democracy without an educated and rational population, and there are better solutions in the meantime than waiting for that to manifest.

ttonkytonk 2y ago

We need to bravely search for the truth in all matters.

DEADMINCE 2y ago
This seems like a vague comment that doesn't map to mine in any real way. Could you elaborate a little more on your point?
- ttonkytonk 2y ago
  I believe the real evil is in the conceit of knowledge, and that the gross inequalities of material wealth are actually only symptoms of this. Roughly 2,500 years ago two giants of ethical philosophy appeared on the scene in the form of Socrates (who can be learned about best through Plato's dialogues and Xenophon's underappreciated Socratic works) and Siddartha Guatama (I would recommend Thich Nhat Hanh's Old Path White Clouds as a reasonably unified source of his life and thought). I know bringing those guys up probably seems sentimental, but I have lived experience with poverty, and political "realism" is only beneficial to those who have not as yet suffered the consequences of harmful patterns of behavior. I think Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol illustrates a pretty good path for the exceedingly wealthy to become heroes, but there's this problem of sentiment, isn't there? And yet sentiment is constantly appealed to in all forms of commercial advertising! People don't even know why or how they are here. Siddartha and Socrates' responses were basically that the answers are difficult to articulate or fathom, but the real pressing issue is how best to live life, and their answers were basically to moderate and do no harm or wrong, at least as much as possible, because the real goods are non-material, and to do wrong actually harms the perpetrator more than the victim.