4 ms·

Such discussions always remind me of the short-sightedness of man. Anyone with a cursory understanding of history knows that if left to their own devices, the r

by FD3SA 13y ago

Such discussions always remind me of the short-sightedness of man. Anyone with a cursory understanding of history knows that if left to their own devices, the rich continuously consolidate wealth until there is a single Monarch, apparently chosen by God, who rules above everyone with impunity. That this is not obvious shows how far we've fallen off the path of simple rational thought.

goodgoblin 13y ago
Yes history is full of monarchs but our current configurations of government in the West are also reactions to them. We are programmed from birth to revolt at the notion of an American King, and safeguards exist to prevent concentrations of power. What isn't always obvious is the ways that new abuses are being perpetrated, but once that reaches a certain level then the threshold for action is crossed, and new safeguards can be implemented.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- izend 13y ago
  People under the Roman Republic were also programmed to revolt at the notion of a Roman King...
  - goodgoblin 13y ago
    True -- though the Republic lasted over 500 years and embodied a conscious understanding of the dangers of power concentration. Roman Senators demanded that foreign kings pay deference to them, and no self styled absolute ruler was allowed to set foot in the city limits. The power elite of the day saw themselves as custodians of an excellent system to some degree and took pains to maintain it. These days it does seem that very few at the top have that sense of responsibility.
- tedks 13y ago
  >What isn't always obvious is the ways that new abuses are being perpetrated, but once that reaches a certain level then the threshold for action is crossed, and new safeguards can be implemented. Why do you assume that the novel abuses of the system become non-obvious in time for anything to be done about them? It's perfectly feasible that the creeping forces of darkness stay hidden until far after it's too late to do anything to stop them. Life is not a movie. In reality, you sometimes lose; the hero sometimes dies alone; the person you love sometimes marries someone else and lives a happy, fulfilling life never thinking about you. In reality, you can't rely on literary clichés to save you. Nothing will save you. You are on your own.
  - nostrademons 13y ago
    In reality, when you lose you usually end up redefining the victory conditions so that you've won. Life's not a board game where you play it by someone else's rules. You are, to a large extent, free to make up the rules so that they suit you.
    - tedks 13y ago
      This is very true! But that doesn't make it right. Life usually has objective victory conditions. Even if you're playing by your own rules, the rules tend to be objective, because humans tend to care about the real world, not what we can convince ourselves. If your startup fails, you are not going to wave a wand in your mind and say "I've won!" If you do, you will not feel fulfilled. You will not feel happy. Even if your startup was viciously heaving its death throes for years and you finally, finally pulled the plug, you will not feel "victory" in the sense you would if you were bought by Oracle and made a millionaire, because of your stock options. Your employees will not sit around a table clapping, like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nObH1R9ONw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nObH1R9ONw It's very true that people try to convince themselves, following a loss, that they in fact won. They try to convince themselves that now they're free to start the next company, which will surely be a success, or that the person who left them wasn't right for them anyways, and that they'll meet someone new. But in reality, the next company is sometimes also a failure, and the person who left you sometimes was your only soulmate, driven away by your workaholism or your nagging or whatever else you did. We can lie to ourselves, but it's hard to truly deceive yourself. Think back to the times in your life when you've lost; you know what they are, and you know how they feel. When you lose again, and you will lose again, you'll know that you've lost then too.
- evanlivingston 13y ago
  Yes and no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
- kzrdude 13y ago
  You'd better start implementing those safeguards now soon, since the SCOTUS allowed even more money into politics in a decision today.
  - goodgoblin 13y ago
    I saw that -- it was an amazing reversal. Apparently those limits have stood for almost 50 years, surviving a challenge in 1979 even on the grounds that campaign contributions can quickly turn into legalized bribery. It does seem like something that needs to run its course though. At some point people have to think for themselves, and learn to ignore or deconstruct the commercials which result.

by FD3SA 13y ago

goodgoblin 13y ago

Yes history is full of monarchs but our current configurations of government in the West are also reactions to them. We are programmed from birth to revolt at the notion of an American King, and safeguards exist to prevent concentrations of power. What isn't always obvious is the ways that new abuses are being perpetrated, but once that reaches a certain level then the threshold for action is crossed, and new safeguards can be implemented.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
izend 13y ago
People under the Roman Republic were also programmed to revolt at the notion of a Roman King...
- goodgoblin 13y ago
  True -- though the Republic lasted over 500 years and embodied a conscious understanding of the dangers of power concentration. Roman Senators demanded that foreign kings pay deference to them, and no self styled absolute ruler was allowed to set foot in the city limits. The power elite of the day saw themselves as custodians of an excellent system to some degree and took pains to maintain it. These days it does seem that very few at the top have that sense of responsibility.
tedks 13y ago
>What isn't always obvious is the ways that new abuses are being perpetrated, but once that reaches a certain level then the threshold for action is crossed, and new safeguards can be implemented. Why do you assume that the novel abuses of the system become non-obvious in time for anything to be done about them? It's perfectly feasible that the creeping forces of darkness stay hidden until far after it's too late to do anything to stop them. Life is not a movie. In reality, you sometimes lose; the hero sometimes dies alone; the person you love sometimes marries someone else and lives a happy, fulfilling life never thinking about you. In reality, you can't rely on literary clichés to save you. Nothing will save you. You are on your own.
- nostrademons 13y ago
  In reality, when you lose you usually end up redefining the victory conditions so that you've won. Life's not a board game where you play it by someone else's rules. You are, to a large extent, free to make up the rules so that they suit you.
  - tedks 13y ago
    This is very true! But that doesn't make it right. Life usually has objective victory conditions. Even if you're playing by your own rules, the rules tend to be objective, because humans tend to care about the real world, not what we can convince ourselves. If your startup fails, you are not going to wave a wand in your mind and say "I've won!" If you do, you will not feel fulfilled. You will not feel happy. Even if your startup was viciously heaving its death throes for years and you finally, finally pulled the plug, you will not feel "victory" in the sense you would if you were bought by Oracle and made a millionaire, because of your stock options. Your employees will not sit around a table clapping, like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nObH1R9ONw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nObH1R9ONw It's very true that people try to convince themselves, following a loss, that they in fact won. They try to convince themselves that now they're free to start the next company, which will surely be a success, or that the person who left them wasn't right for them anyways, and that they'll meet someone new. But in reality, the next company is sometimes also a failure, and the person who left you sometimes was your only soulmate, driven away by your workaholism or your nagging or whatever else you did. We can lie to ourselves, but it's hard to truly deceive yourself. Think back to the times in your life when you've lost; you know what they are, and you know how they feel. When you lose again, and you will lose again, you'll know that you've lost then too.
evanlivingston 13y ago
Yes and no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
kzrdude 13y ago
You'd better start implementing those safeguards now soon, since the SCOTUS allowed even more money into politics in a decision today.
- goodgoblin 13y ago
  I saw that -- it was an amazing reversal. Apparently those limits have stood for almost 50 years, surviving a challenge in 1979 even on the grounds that campaign contributions can quickly turn into legalized bribery. It does seem like something that needs to run its course though. At some point people have to think for themselves, and learn to ignore or deconstruct the commercials which result.