Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   The myth of America as the land of opportunity is busted by some Nobel winner   (opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ) divider line
    More: Sad, Nobel Laureates, Ayn Rand, equality of opportunity, environmental hazards, second inaugural address, Alan Krueger, achievement gap, Stiglitz  
•       •       •

8216 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Feb 2013 at 3:31 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



359 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-02-19 06:08:28 PM  

iawai: My better solution is to abolish the subsidy network that props up politically connected "old money" industries, to distribute the regulatory structure to privately owned regulators who can better keep the big guys in check and not place undue burdens on small startup businesses, to stop pretending that the government has any interest in helping poor people, because poor people don't prop up their donations nor do they have a stake in the revolving door of big banks and big industry and the govt.


I wouldn't call that a better solution. In fact, I'd say the complete opposite. That's a horribly stupid idea.
Privatizing the regulatory framework is probably the worst possible thing that could be done. Or did you believe the banks when they said they could police themselves?

How about I fix this for you....

iawai: to stop pretending that the government private industry has any interest in helping poor people

 As long as I have a vote, I trust the government more than I do private enterprise. A shareholder can be bought out while voting is a right.
 
2013-02-19 07:10:20 PM  
KiltedBastich
Ah good, you actually noticed the first part of the problem. So now you've given up on governing. How are you going to make your complex modern society function at all?

Maybe the problem is that the word "government" is being thrown around when what's really meant is "State". If you want to call any large-scale organizational system a 'government' then we'd have to start talking about a 'Stateless government' which makes my brain hurt just typing it.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread, so here's a straight answer.


Sergeant Grumbles
As long as I have a vote, I trust the government more than I do private enterprise. A shareholder can be bought out while voting is a right.

You have the right to a totally superficial vague preference. Congratulations.
 
2013-02-19 08:11:22 PM  
Ghastly:
The revolution will never have the support of the population. Fascism 2.0 will have the benefit of history at its side. It'll realize the Iron Fist is nowhere near as effective at controlling the population as the fluffy pillow. People will be kept comfortable, productive, and saturated with opiates of all kinds. Fascism 2.0 will be sold under the banner of freedom. "Government" will be almost non existence replaced instead by a coalition of large multinational corporate monopolies.

Entertaining post, scary in it's resemblance to current days.  Only thing I think you are missing is that there will still be a stratified society and capitalism can't contain it's self.  It will (by it's very nature) push more and more of the populace towards the bottom, after their fleecing. Just like the Enron folks ruined deregulation plans for the nation by raping California.

This will always be their undoing, Capitalism/Corporatism will always sell you the rope that you use to hang them.
 
2013-02-19 10:45:04 PM  

RanDomino: Maybe the problem is that the word "government" is being thrown around when what's really meant is "State". If you want to call any large-scale organizational system a 'government' then we'd have to start talking about a 'Stateless government' which makes my brain hurt just typing it.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread, so here's a straight answer.


No, I mean government. A state is the boundaries you draw on the map. A municipality has a government, a state has a government, a nation has a government. In fact, if you get into some fairly abstract social theory. Any time you have a body given the mandate to enact law for the society it represents, you have a government. Corporations can be that government, you know, oligarchy is an old concept in political science.

And anarcho-syndicalism is also simply an alternate form of government, and one that has the rather enormous Achilles' heel of requiring informed ethical behaviour of all participants. The very idealism and decentralization it espouses makes it very vulnerable to anyone who wishes to selfishly exploit or overthrow the system, and it makes almost no provisions at all for the kind of personal charisma that can let one person convince others to follow him or her and follow their lead in commiting said exploitation. Humans engage in tribal behaviours instinctively. It takes almost nothing at all to trigger "us vs. them" thinking and behaviour patterns, and it is the easiest thing in the world for someone with a modicum of personal charisma and native intelligence to exploit to their own benefit.

Ultimately, it makes the fundamental mistake of assuming that humans, once they understand the system, will want to participate honestly and ethically rather than exploit the system. It also presumes a level of general education in, understanding of and acceptance of these very specific ideological concepts that is essentially impossible to achieve in a pluralistic society that values personal freedom and different perspectives.  All in all, that's incredibly foolish, as anyone who has ever studied social psychology can tell you. People are short-sighted and self-interested. Even when they know better they will often take the easy and selfish route, especially if no one they know directly is going to be affected. You will always have people who will try to game the system. You will always have people willing to organize themselves into groups, be they tribes, guilds, nations or corporations, in order to seek advantage. If you want to change this, then you will have to literally change the underlying nature of human beings.

(Seriously, I already told you I have a degree in sociology. Did you think I would be unfamiliar with anarcho-sydicalism? It's a little obscure, but it has direct roots in Marxist theory, and Karl Marx is one of the three big names in sociology along with Max Weber and Emile Durkheim. Most any sociologist worth the name will at least be familiar with the basics.)

This is just another example of why I hold a very poor opinion of most ideologies. They lead people to attempt to make the world conform to how they think it should be, to their ultimate detriment and usually the detriment of those around them, rather than learning to accept the world on its own terms as honestly as they can.

If you do not understand, the universe is as it is. If you do understand, the universe is as it is. - Zen koan
 
2013-02-20 01:53:08 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: I wouldn't call that a better solution. In fact, I'd say the complete opposite. That's a horribly stupid idea.
Privatizing the regulatory framework is probably the worst possible thing that could be done. Or did you believe the banks when they said they could police themselves?


Hmm....
3.bp.blogspot.com
I don't trust the banks to regulate themselves, that's why (1) I don't want the govt regulating them, (2) I don't want a fiat currency, (3) I don't want to pay taxes to an institution that bails them out, and (4) I would rather trust a private regulator who could be judged by independent courts to be at an arms-length from the regulated entities.

Sergeant Grumbles: As long as I have a vote, I trust the government more than I do private enterprise. A shareholder can be bought out while voting is a right.


Your vote doesn't matter. And even so, why does 51% get to tell 49% how to run their lives?

You don't have a "right" to vote, anyway - you have been granted the privilege to throw your ballot into the ocean of ballots filled out by the rest of the voters.

I'd rather rely on my private property rights as a shareholder, and be free to sell my share if I don't like how the regulator I've invested in has been doing their job.
 
2013-02-20 10:45:58 AM  

iawai: I don't trust the banks to regulate themselves, that's why (1) I don't want the govt regulating them, (2) I don't want a fiat currency, (3) I don't want to pay taxes to an institution that bails them out, and (4) I would rather trust a private regulator who could be judged by independent courts to be at an arms-length from the regulated entities.


You don't want to live in reality. Could have just said that.
 
2013-02-20 01:22:19 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: iawai: I don't trust the banks to regulate themselves, that's why (1) I don't want the govt regulating them, (2) I don't want a fiat currency, (3) I don't want to pay taxes to an institution that bails them out, and (4) I would rather trust a private regulator who could be judged by independent courts to be at an arms-length from the regulated entities.

You don't want to live in reality. Could have just said that.


And you don't want to accept that you live in a reality that sucks. Could have just said that.
 
2013-02-20 01:43:54 PM  

iawai: And you don't want to accept that you live in a reality that sucks. Could have just said that.


I accept reality sucks. I also know your fantasy isn't any kind of solution to making it suck any less.

Making money king is half of the problem with the U.S. today. Going all the way is only going to invite more corruption.
How is a private regulator, presumably beholden to its own shareholders, supposed to make objective decisions on the industries it regulates? I think it can only end one way, the Food and Drug Administraction (a subsidiary of Brawndo, Inc.).
 
2013-02-21 11:49:36 AM  
KiltedBastich
Did you think I would be unfamiliar with anarcho-sydicalism? It's a little obscure, but it has direct roots in Marxist theory

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
 
Displayed 9 of 359 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report