6 ms·

> We can still accomplish big innovations without those innovations coming from, or being controlled, by nation-state private companies. We've ran high-risk R&D

> We can still accomplish big innovations without those innovations coming from, or being controlled, by nation-state private companies. We've ran high-risk R&D projects successfully before as public projects - Manhattan project, the space race & moon landing, ARPANET, etc. So you prefer nation-state nations over nation-state private companies. :-)

mstipetic 1y ago
Yes of course
ghaff 1y ago
Though two of your examples (not really Manhattan Project) had very significant private sector participants.
- thewebguyd 1y ago
  I think that's unavoidable, but also not a bad thing. If we were to undertake any similar large scale public projects today, it would also have significant private sector participation. But, that drives job creation and positive effects on the economy (i.e., new deal). The main difference is, ideally, the project was voted on by the public, and is being steered as such. A public-private collaboration, with the public driving it rather than it being entirely the domain of a single private entity for their own profit.
radlad 1y ago
I do, when citizens have the ability to steer their nation state (i.e. the ability to vote.) On this note, I've lived in a couple states with ballot initiative processes and while they are not perfect, I think they are absolutely necessary for citizens to truly be able to hold their elected representatives accountable (i.e. override them) and I wish we had them at a federal level.
- aleph_minus_one 1y ago
  > I do, when citizens have the ability to steer their nation state (i.e. the ability to vote.) You can also vote in the shareholders meeting.
  - thewebguyd 1y ago
    You have to buy your way into voting as a shareholder. In a democracy, it's just your given right as a citizen.
    - aleph_minus_one 1y ago
      > You have to buy your way into voting as a shareholder. In a democracy, it's just your given right as a citizen. In a democratic country, only the people who have citizenship are allowed to vote. In a shareholders meeting, only the shareholders are allowed to vote. You sometimes cam buy your way into citizenship. As a shareholder, it is your given right to vote in a shareholders meeting.
      - Fraterkes 1y ago
        Even if you think there's no qualitative difference between the 2 (which I think is a deeply immature idea, but whatever), there's an obvious quantitative difference: In practice democratic voting power is much more socioeconomically spread and shared than shareholder voting power.
      - radlad 1y ago
        Shareholders receive power proportionate to their buying power. Citizens get a single vote. > You sometimes cam buy your way into citizenship. As a shareholder, it is your given right to vote in a shareholders meeting. Maybe - depending on your jurisdiction. Just like whether you have citizenship or not.
        aleph_minus_one 1y ago
        > Shareholders receive power proportionate to their buying power. Citizens get a single vote. Historically, there did exist experiments that not each person has the same voting power (for example the Prussian "Dreiklassenwahlrecht" [three-class franchise]): > https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreiklassenwahlrecht https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreiklassenwahlrecht Depending on the amount of taxes you paid, you were assigned to one of three classes. The sizes of each of these classes were chosen so that each class paid 1/3 of the whole tax volume. The votes in each class elected representants for this class. The idea is obvious: those who pay a lot more taxes should have more influence. Thus: each citizen has the same voting power is just the "currently fashionable" implementation of democracy.
tavavex 1y ago
Is that a bad thing? Democracies, even if flawed, are accountable to their citizens at least to an extent. Their power structures aren't dictatorial, like in a company, and can be steered and course-corrected. Private companies are accountable to no one, their only motivator and reason for existence is profit. If they're allowed to run our society, the outcome that we're seemingly inching towards, there will be nothing to stop their inevitable abuse for the sake of value extraction.
- aleph_minus_one 1y ago
  > Democracies, even if flawed, are accountable to their citizens at least to an extent. Stock corporation, even if flawed, are accountable to their stock holders at least to an extent; thus your point > Private companies are accountable to no one clearly does not hold. Corporations, of course, can also be steered and course-corrected (shareholders meetings).
  - _aavaa_ 1y ago
    Corporations are in principle and practice accountable to those with more money. For all its flaws our democracy is still one person one vote.
    - potato3732842 1y ago
      >For all its flaws our democracy is still one person one vote. Which seems to just devolve to "the lizards listen to whoever/whatever has money" at the high levels where the number of voters is very high.
      - radlad 1y ago
        Some governments restrict the extent to which "lizards" can use their money to gain air time, etc.
        actionfromafar 1y ago
modo_mario 1y ago
Might I note that we're building down nation states at a rapid rate at least in the west trough migration. The vast majority of my capital is not comprised of belgian ethnicities for example and the same will start to hold trough for a number of the other biggest cities.

mstipetic 1y ago

Yes of course

ghaff 1y ago

Though two of your examples (not really Manhattan Project) had very significant private sector participants.

thewebguyd 1y ago
I think that's unavoidable, but also not a bad thing. If we were to undertake any similar large scale public projects today, it would also have significant private sector participation. But, that drives job creation and positive effects on the economy (i.e., new deal). The main difference is, ideally, the project was voted on by the public, and is being steered as such. A public-private collaboration, with the public driving it rather than it being entirely the domain of a single private entity for their own profit.

radlad 1y ago

I do, when citizens have the ability to steer their nation state (i.e. the ability to vote.) On this note, I've lived in a couple states with ballot initiative processes and while they are not perfect, I think they are absolutely necessary for citizens to truly be able to hold their elected representatives accountable (i.e. override them) and I wish we had them at a federal level.

aleph_minus_one 1y ago
> I do, when citizens have the ability to steer their nation state (i.e. the ability to vote.) You can also vote in the shareholders meeting.
- thewebguyd 1y ago
  You have to buy your way into voting as a shareholder. In a democracy, it's just your given right as a citizen.
  - aleph_minus_one 1y ago
    > You have to buy your way into voting as a shareholder. In a democracy, it's just your given right as a citizen. In a democratic country, only the people who have citizenship are allowed to vote. In a shareholders meeting, only the shareholders are allowed to vote. You sometimes cam buy your way into citizenship. As a shareholder, it is your given right to vote in a shareholders meeting.
    - Fraterkes 1y ago
      Even if you think there's no qualitative difference between the 2 (which I think is a deeply immature idea, but whatever), there's an obvious quantitative difference: In practice democratic voting power is much more socioeconomically spread and shared than shareholder voting power.
    - radlad 1y ago
      Shareholders receive power proportionate to their buying power. Citizens get a single vote. > You sometimes cam buy your way into citizenship. As a shareholder, it is your given right to vote in a shareholders meeting. Maybe - depending on your jurisdiction. Just like whether you have citizenship or not.
      - aleph_minus_one 1y ago
        > Shareholders receive power proportionate to their buying power. Citizens get a single vote. Historically, there did exist experiments that not each person has the same voting power (for example the Prussian "Dreiklassenwahlrecht" [three-class franchise]): > https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreiklassenwahlrecht https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreiklassenwahlrecht Depending on the amount of taxes you paid, you were assigned to one of three classes. The sizes of each of these classes were chosen so that each class paid 1/3 of the whole tax volume. The votes in each class elected representants for this class. The idea is obvious: those who pay a lot more taxes should have more influence. Thus: each citizen has the same voting power is just the "currently fashionable" implementation of democracy.

tavavex 1y ago

Is that a bad thing? Democracies, even if flawed, are accountable to their citizens at least to an extent. Their power structures aren't dictatorial, like in a company, and can be steered and course-corrected. Private companies are accountable to no one, their only motivator and reason for existence is profit. If they're allowed to run our society, the outcome that we're seemingly inching towards, there will be nothing to stop their inevitable abuse for the sake of value extraction.

aleph_minus_one 1y ago
> Democracies, even if flawed, are accountable to their citizens at least to an extent. Stock corporation, even if flawed, are accountable to their stock holders at least to an extent; thus your point > Private companies are accountable to no one clearly does not hold. Corporations, of course, can also be steered and course-corrected (shareholders meetings).
- _aavaa_ 1y ago
  Corporations are in principle and practice accountable to those with more money. For all its flaws our democracy is still one person one vote.
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    >For all its flaws our democracy is still one person one vote. Which seems to just devolve to "the lizards listen to whoever/whatever has money" at the high levels where the number of voters is very high.
    - radlad 1y ago
      Some governments restrict the extent to which "lizards" can use their money to gain air time, etc.
      - actionfromafar 1y ago

modo_mario 1y ago

Might I note that we're building down nation states at a rapid rate at least in the west trough migration. The vast majority of my capital is not comprised of belgian ethnicities for example and the same will start to hold trough for a number of the other biggest cities.