6 ms·
At some point societies are going to have to reckon with the fact that democracy, free speech, and unrestricted capitalism simply aren't a sustainable mix. A s
by slg 5mo ago
At some point societies are going to have to reckon with the fact that democracy, free speech, and unrestricted capitalism simply aren't a sustainable mix. A system that allows people to amass incredible fortunes and use those fortunes to influence other people's beliefs and votes is simply a system that will eventually fall under the control of those ultrawealthy people.
- EA-3167 5mo agoWhat’s your more effective, less flawed alternative with a proven track record?
- dotcoma 5mo agoThere were times when NASA went to space, not incredibly wealthy individuals…
- EA-3167 5mo agoNASA just sent four people around the Moon.
- bongoman42 5mo agoNASA went and turned itself into a gigantic inefficient bureaucracy to the point that SpaceX considers NASA experience a negative.
- MisterTea 5mo agoEvery large entity eventually becomes an inefficient bureaucracy.
- platevoltage 5mo agoWhy are we at all concerned with what SpaceX considers a negative?
- JuniperMesos 5mo agoBecause they've gotten a lot of mass into orbit cheaply.
- slg 5mo agoThe "proven track record" part of your question is shortsighted. We shouldn't restrict future political thought by past political thoughts. We'd never see any progress that way. If you're asking which one of the three I think we should focus our attention for change, I think the obvious answer from both a moral and logical standpoint is capitalism. The combination of democracy and free speech means money is political power. Allowing individuals to amass this much political power is both unjust and destabilizing. That goes for companies as well. If companies are going to be amorally motivated purely by money, we need to do a better job of pricing in externalities to put reins on that amorality.
- irishcoffee 5mo agoSomeone smarter than me can weight on this part, but I don't think it was/is capitalism per se. Moving off the gold standard, and allowing the Dodge Brothers to win the case saying stock holders were more important than paying workers were a 1-2 gut punch to capitalism. I don't believe our forefathers would be very proud of us if they saw this mess.
- johnnyanmac 5mo agoDodge v. Ford was both a landmark case and a very narrow excuse that holds no jurisdiction outside of Massachusetts. I hope someone challenges it one day, but it seems like any potential challengers benefit from pretending it's precedent.
- FloorEgg 5mo agoCapitalism is an extension of nature. Nature can be cruel, but it's still nature. Blaming capitalism for what's happening in America is like blaming an engine for a car not having seatbelts.
- platevoltage 5mo agoNo. Anarchism is an extension of nature, and a better analogy would be blaming an engine for only Rolls Royces having seatbelts.
- alistairSH 5mo agoIt's not an either/or situation... we can improve on the capitalist system we have today (in the US) through government policy (taxes, whatever). I fear we're actually too late, and ceded too ,much influence to the billionaire class, but that's not totally proven out yet.
- michaelmrose 5mo agoMarginal tax rates on income and wealth that make being a billionaire impossible? The US was prosperous with much higher marginal tax rates for instance. We should treat existing fortunes as bugs and correct them.
- hsbauauvhabzb 5mo agoI’m not sure if you are aware but there are ways for the rich and powerful to live, maintain and earn fortunes outside of the US.
- johnnyanmac 5mo agoGood, let them leave, then. I'm tired of this excuse of "but the parasites are crucial to our way of life". As if the invisible hand won't have dozens of other companies to compete and fill the void should the monopoly man walk away with his money. They've had decades to move to Dubai or New Zealand or whatever other magical country doesn't tax its residents. I wonder why they choose to stay in one of the richest countries in the world instead?
- hsbauauvhabzb 5mo agoMy point is they can still influence the US even if they / their money isn’t there. Do you really live in that much of a US-centric bubble where you don’t realise outside influence exists?
- johnnyanmac 5mo ago>they can still influence the US even if they / their money isn’t there. Sure, but I wager not being in the US means less money. And thus less influence > Do you really live in that much of a US-centric bubble where you don’t realise outside influence exists? Adding any friction to their influence is a good thing, in my eyes.
- hsbauauvhabzb 5mo ago
- za3faran 5mo agoThe Islamic system does not permit uncontrolled capitalism, requires fair financial transactions, is pro rights for both rulers and the population, enforces Zakat (alms tax / a form of wealth tax).
- bongoman42 5mo agoThe middle east has the largest concentration of billionaires outside of US/China and huge poverty alongside. It is so grotesque that the rich will often just kill people and casually pay blood money.
- za3faran 5mo agoBegin a billionaire is not inherently unethical. It's about how the money was acquired and how it is spent. This notion that it is evil is mainly a western one.
- bongoman42 5mo agoThe Islamic system literally permits slavery, including sexual slavery. It is far worse than capitalism any day.
- za3faran 5mo agoThe slavery it permits (yet heavily restricts) is different than the one in your head that europeans and americans engaged in, so that's a straw man. Sex slavery is not permitted. When you read history, you would see that many Mawali were scholars, and you can read about the Mamluki empire. This was never seen anywhere in human history. As discussed elsewhere in this thread, the slavery that you're thinking of is still permitted in capitalist america, not to mention other forms that exist today in broad daylight, but are more subtle, so people don't say anything (and those are prohibited by Islam).
- za3faran 5mo ago
- elkrapo 5mo agoI think Julius Caesar demands a word if we were only supposed to use systems with proven track records.
- gus_massa 5mo agoIsn't he the millionaire that destroyed the Roman Republic?
- elkrapo 5mo agoExactly.
- EA-3167 5mo agoAre you seriously claiming that building an empire didn't have a proven track record by the time of Caesar? Interesting.
- elkrapo 5mo agoNo, Caesar suggests that no founding father of a modern country accepted your requirement of a proven track record for republics.
- Terr_ 5mo agohttps://xkcd.com/2383/ https://xkcd.com/2383/
- johnnyanmac 5mo agoHigh captial tax rates, strong labor protections, and banned stock buybacks as a start. So much hubub over "make america great again" but we seem very coy about looking at fiscal policy back in the "great" days. And I don't even think these are the best ideas. But they have "a proven track record".
- FloorEgg 5mo agoUnrestricted capitalism doesn't exist anywhere in the world.
- slg 5mo agoNeither does democracy nor free speech. It's interesting that you felt the need to quibble over only one of those three definitions. I used those words in the context of the rise of companies like Meta and people like Zuckerberg. I trusted the people reading what I wrote to know that. A response telling me the US is a republic adds nothing to the conversation but allowing an individual to bask in their own pedantry.
- FloorEgg 5mo agoUhh... The idea that democracy doesn't exist in the world is not something that I currently agree with. Did you mean to say direct democracy? Very similar take on free speech vs absolute free speech. Did your definition mean to include exceptions for libel, fraud, child exploitation? Etc.? You seem to be insinuating something about me by saying "it's interesting you felt..." But you are the one who put the "unrestricted" qualifier next to capitalism and no such extreme anchors on the other two concepts. It's also interesting that you chose to imply something about my character instead of reflect on your own choice of words and their objective meanings.
- slg 5mo agoLike I said, I don't think quibbling over specific word choices is productive. So what are you hoping to accomplish with your comments here? Because you're coming off like someone trying to score points in a high school debate rather than someone trying to have a conversation. I would consider that interpretation as giving you the benefit of the doubt, because the only alternative is a judgment of your intellect. To end any possible confusion, "unrestricted capitalism" meant capitalism without enough restrictions. It was used to cover a range of related concepts and ideologies such as laissez-faire, Anglo-Saxon, and neoliberalism. It was used to indicate that my problem was not with more basic capitalistic ideals like private property and competitive markets.