3 ms·

People want more government control, but when governments take more control the press tells the people that it's bad and the people acquiesce. In local forums,

People want more government control, but when governments take more control the press tells the people that it's bad and the people acquiesce. In local forums, so often you see (paraphrasing a pattern) "why are the government interfering with landlords, they should stop so many barbers opening instead". That is, why are the gov interfering in property markets, instead they should interfere in property markets AND plan the economy (where economy here means 'financial system'). The people promoting planned economy without realising it are always 'right wing' 'all Communists should be shot'-types. It's fascinating.

Xirdus 4mo ago
I know a lot of left win Europeans who promote planned economy without realising it. So there's that. I think a better way to look at it is people demanding the government to intervene whenever intervention is beneficial to them personally, while demanding the government leave things alone whenever intervention is detrimental to them personally. Which is just a long winded way to describe the basics of democracy - people voting in their own interest.
- Nevermark 4mo ago
  > people voting in their own interest. There are some people who care about policy, care about a generally healthy environment. Which has a strong self-interest aspect, as it should, but not narrow. Few people manage to vote for their own narrow interests in a reliable coherent way. Even the rich and powerful reliably foot gun themselves. I believe the vast majority, the vast majority of the time, reliably and enthusiastically vote for their group's shibboleths. Regardless of what they might say or believe their own motivations are. Even seemingly sophisticated and principled thinkers. It shows via the reliable, trivial to resolve, but reflection impervious group-coded "misunderstandings" that even "serious" people defend and nurture. The group reinforced, often meme-reflex deflected, unthinkables. Across the political spectrum. People vote for brands.
  - Jensson 4mo ago
    > People vote for brands. Right, so the government should be based on brands rather than people. USA trying to make a people centric system still ended up into a brand centric republican vs democrat, just that now those brands changes dramatically every 4 years just people still vote for the brand even after it changes. Its much more stable when you have stable political party brands like in multi party system, then a person voting for the same brand for 40 years will vote for roughly the same politics instead of it changing all the time.
    - Xirdus 4mo ago
      In practice, multi-party systems rotate their brands in and out with much higher frequency than two-party systems.
    - Nevermark 4mo ago
      Branding effects are not the core problem, they just make the core problems worse. CORE PROBLEMS: A system that continually converges down to only two viable parties, rewards divisive candidates and handicaps broadly-liked third or fourth party candidates. A system that allows one party to capture all three branches of government. Incentivizing extreme power plays/centralization in and between parties. (Usually starts within a party.) A system that lets parties integrate at Federal and State levels, suppressing or eliminating the otherwise strong benefits of Federal/State government decentralization. Creates massive incentives for out-of-state capture of state politics. A permissive system for players to cache out as system-undermining lobbyists after a tour of "service". CORE SOLUTIONS: Maximum seat-run limits for parties, forces cross-partisanship and coalitions as some level. Any is better than none. Separation of parties at Federal and State levels. And/or limits on numbers of states a party can operate in. Use the Federalized system of decentralizing Federal/State government to achieve parallel decentralization of parties. Take money out of politics. Hard to do perfectly, but any limits make a big difference. Brands operate on pervasive non-rational visibility and repetition, i.e. money. Voting systems that give wide-appeal candidates an advantage. Voluntary acceptance of a post-tour lobbying bans, as a requirement for political and policy appointments. Remove that pervasive conflict of interest machine. Disincentivize game players from public "service".
- nickff 4mo ago
  “The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.” ― Frederic Bastiat https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/70896-the-state-is-that-great-fiction-by-which-everyone-tries https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/70896-the-state-is-that-gre...
nekusar 4mo ago
Properly planning the economy, ala the Chinese tier system, is a good thing. They have 3 tiers. Its called 新基建 - *Xīn Jījiàn Top tier is for essentials like food, electricity, internet/comms, water, sewer. Heavily controlled, usually state owned companies. Middle tier is stuff that's integrated into essential tier. Lower tier is forefront of tech, and not at all critical for life. And a reminder that even fucks like Nestle said that water is not a human right. But every capitalist would do their damndest to put a sale price on anything they could. They'd charge breathing if possible.
- kingleopold 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - nekusar 4mo ago
    And in my experience, the capitalists are SUPER OBSESSED with tallying exact numbers of dead by Communist countries. Of course in the USA, "Nobody dies due to capitalism!" It's always a 'personal decision'. Medicines gatekept? Talk to a doctor (state-controlled monopoly) Go to the doctor? Cant afford it? Go die! :) Have a nasty disease that will kill you, but pills purge it? $80k please. And insurance wont pay. Hope you can afford it. Solvaldi says hi. Cant afford housing? There's an underpass or park for that! Oh you're homeless now? Well, we criminalized that. OH, so you're in jail? Enjoy substandard living conditions, lack of effective medical, poor food, and slavery. And die in prison? Not a life sentence? Fuck you, you deserved to anyways! Groceries gouging on food (like meat or eggs or whatever)? Thats a capitalism correction. Industry polluting your area and causing life expectancy to drop and massive reproductive harm? SHoulda chose a better neighborhood. Even with Solvaldi, a hepatitis cure costs $84k. But it costs $300 to synthesize at home. And over 6 million people have needlessly died because the cure was capitalistically priced above their legal means. But they will all be labeled as "poor life choices", and not the correct capitalist death. https://kolektiva.media/w/uvD1wWTRoh7HEto8zeSswr https://kolektiva.media/w/uvD1wWTRoh7HEto8zeSswr - Four Thieves Vinegar Collective video in synthesizing your own pharmaceuticals to bypass capitalist deaths. The key to capitalism is the magic word "externality". If it's external to what you're doing, you can make others suffer and die and keep your hands clean. And all of this then get shoved on the individual for "Poor Life Choices". In reality, these too are capitalist deaths, but you will *NEVER* see them marked as such.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]

Xirdus 4mo ago

I know a lot of left win Europeans who promote planned economy without realising it. So there's that. I think a better way to look at it is people demanding the government to intervene whenever intervention is beneficial to them personally, while demanding the government leave things alone whenever intervention is detrimental to them personally. Which is just a long winded way to describe the basics of democracy - people voting in their own interest.

Nevermark 4mo ago
> people voting in their own interest. There are some people who care about policy, care about a generally healthy environment. Which has a strong self-interest aspect, as it should, but not narrow. Few people manage to vote for their own narrow interests in a reliable coherent way. Even the rich and powerful reliably foot gun themselves. I believe the vast majority, the vast majority of the time, reliably and enthusiastically vote for their group's shibboleths. Regardless of what they might say or believe their own motivations are. Even seemingly sophisticated and principled thinkers. It shows via the reliable, trivial to resolve, but reflection impervious group-coded "misunderstandings" that even "serious" people defend and nurture. The group reinforced, often meme-reflex deflected, unthinkables. Across the political spectrum. People vote for brands.
- Jensson 4mo ago
  > People vote for brands. Right, so the government should be based on brands rather than people. USA trying to make a people centric system still ended up into a brand centric republican vs democrat, just that now those brands changes dramatically every 4 years just people still vote for the brand even after it changes. Its much more stable when you have stable political party brands like in multi party system, then a person voting for the same brand for 40 years will vote for roughly the same politics instead of it changing all the time.
  - Xirdus 4mo ago
    In practice, multi-party systems rotate their brands in and out with much higher frequency than two-party systems.
  - Nevermark 4mo ago
    Branding effects are not the core problem, they just make the core problems worse. CORE PROBLEMS: A system that continually converges down to only two viable parties, rewards divisive candidates and handicaps broadly-liked third or fourth party candidates. A system that allows one party to capture all three branches of government. Incentivizing extreme power plays/centralization in and between parties. (Usually starts within a party.) A system that lets parties integrate at Federal and State levels, suppressing or eliminating the otherwise strong benefits of Federal/State government decentralization. Creates massive incentives for out-of-state capture of state politics. A permissive system for players to cache out as system-undermining lobbyists after a tour of "service". CORE SOLUTIONS: Maximum seat-run limits for parties, forces cross-partisanship and coalitions as some level. Any is better than none. Separation of parties at Federal and State levels. And/or limits on numbers of states a party can operate in. Use the Federalized system of decentralizing Federal/State government to achieve parallel decentralization of parties. Take money out of politics. Hard to do perfectly, but any limits make a big difference. Brands operate on pervasive non-rational visibility and repetition, i.e. money. Voting systems that give wide-appeal candidates an advantage. Voluntary acceptance of a post-tour lobbying bans, as a requirement for political and policy appointments. Remove that pervasive conflict of interest machine. Disincentivize game players from public "service".
nickff 4mo ago
“The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.” ― Frederic Bastiat https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/70896-the-state-is-that-great-fiction-by-which-everyone-tries https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/70896-the-state-is-that-gre...

nekusar 4mo ago

Properly planning the economy, ala the Chinese tier system, is a good thing. They have 3 tiers. Its called 新基建 - *Xīn Jījiàn Top tier is for essentials like food, electricity, internet/comms, water, sewer. Heavily controlled, usually state owned companies. Middle tier is stuff that's integrated into essential tier. Lower tier is forefront of tech, and not at all critical for life. And a reminder that even fucks like Nestle said that water is not a human right. But every capitalist would do their damndest to put a sale price on anything they could. They'd charge breathing if possible.

kingleopold 4mo ago
[flagged]
- nekusar 4mo ago
  And in my experience, the capitalists are SUPER OBSESSED with tallying exact numbers of dead by Communist countries. Of course in the USA, "Nobody dies due to capitalism!" It's always a 'personal decision'. Medicines gatekept? Talk to a doctor (state-controlled monopoly) Go to the doctor? Cant afford it? Go die! :) Have a nasty disease that will kill you, but pills purge it? $80k please. And insurance wont pay. Hope you can afford it. Solvaldi says hi. Cant afford housing? There's an underpass or park for that! Oh you're homeless now? Well, we criminalized that. OH, so you're in jail? Enjoy substandard living conditions, lack of effective medical, poor food, and slavery. And die in prison? Not a life sentence? Fuck you, you deserved to anyways! Groceries gouging on food (like meat or eggs or whatever)? Thats a capitalism correction. Industry polluting your area and causing life expectancy to drop and massive reproductive harm? SHoulda chose a better neighborhood. Even with Solvaldi, a hepatitis cure costs $84k. But it costs $300 to synthesize at home. And over 6 million people have needlessly died because the cure was capitalistically priced above their legal means. But they will all be labeled as "poor life choices", and not the correct capitalist death. https://kolektiva.media/w/uvD1wWTRoh7HEto8zeSswr https://kolektiva.media/w/uvD1wWTRoh7HEto8zeSswr - Four Thieves Vinegar Collective video in synthesizing your own pharmaceuticals to bypass capitalist deaths. The key to capitalism is the magic word "externality". If it's external to what you're doing, you can make others suffer and die and keep your hands clean. And all of this then get shoved on the individual for "Poor Life Choices". In reality, these too are capitalist deaths, but you will *NEVER* see them marked as such.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]