RE: Leftist liberal media and SJW's are losing all connection with sanity...

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Leftist liberal media and SJW's are losing all connection with sanity...

in blog •  7 years ago 

I think the concept of "free markets" is a myth. Money, power and corruption go hand in hand, and even though the rest of us have never been so well informed (or at least have the capacity to be so), the gap between rich and poor has never been starker.

I am not sure I agree (bet you didn't see that coming!) that free market capitalism is the path out of this. It sounds like you are describing libertarianism to me, and I have to say that I do not trust big money makers to have much of a social conscience.

I realise that you hate the idea of communism (and I do get it - the concept is flawed and just as susceptible to corruption), but if I were king, I would be looking to forcibly redistributing the wealth of the super-rich. Not across the board! I wouldn't be looking to make everyone equal (that's naive bullshit), but I would happily sacrifice those at the top of the chain to make things fairer.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

just mentioned you in dispatches - dunno if it will help you much - or not, to be honest...

https://steemit.com/steemit-austria/@lucylin/i-retro-turn-back-time-3-day-photo-challenge-on-steemit-tbt-day-2

That's great. Thank you. And it all helps! I am hoping that there is a tipping point on here. I am some way off, but I have only been here two weeks. The kindness of strangers is a wonderful thing.

will ful helping is so much, a better system, than forced taxation. (theft)lolol

I agree. All help and no tax is never going to happen. Well, until we eventually evolve into a socialist nirvana! I knew we were on the same side!

Socialist nirvana for the 1 % - the rest of us are in hell...

People lived without taxation for a lot longer than with it....

And look how they lived without it. A socialist nirvana for 1% is an oxymoron...

but if I were king, I would be looking to forcibly redistributing the wealth of the super-rich.

...and there in is the problem - centralized power to dictate market forces, decided upon by a human conciensess. It has never worked ou tin history, nor can it...

I think the concept of "free markets" is a myth

A hubris that the human knows better than an age old.. - THE age old - natural dynamic consistent throughout nature, from bacteria to lions....
Supply and demand,and price being decided by that, and nothing more.

Further human tinkering into an over tinkered system = more distortion.
Welcome to the 21st century.

Monopolies and big money makers would disappear quickly without government corruption.
(regulations and rules only being an extension of banking rule to keep the competitor out of the market.

Dinosaurs are slow,(corporations)
Small mammals will take over...if they have the freedom to be in the market place.

Big money social conscience is irrelevant.

The free market will soon redistribute the wealth down from those idiots.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

I have to say I don't see it. As much as the current system is awful, a system without government interference will, IMO, allow even more sociopaths to abuse the power that they have.

This is my left wing upbringing coming out, but the way forward is universal free healthcare, free public transport, free education and universal welfare, and unfettered capitalism will have no interest in all the above, because there is no profit in it.

I would imagine that you are not an advocate for all the above...feel free to set me straight!

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

There is nothing free. In life in, in nature in human relations.

Unfettered capitalism is lending to each other on a mutually agreed contract, nothing more.

Giving free, means taking (forcibly of others..)

Sociopaths are around 3% of the population, and they are indeed the reason for most ills.

Government is heaven for sociopaths, where meritocracy is shunned, and bureaucracy applauded.

Sociopathy thrives in anonymity and big numbers.

Small, decentralized systems thwarts their behavior, and allows for ostracizing them from harm and undue negative influence.

Yanno things were free, once upon a time. If you actually mean "things". We just helped ourselves.

I am not suggesting a return to neolithic times, but life was considerably simpler for our race in the past. And shorter and more brutal, of course!

Your comment about human relations opens up a whole new can of worms!

I still don't see where you are coming from with this theoretical decentralisation. I think it will be a feeding ground for sociopaths.

It's funny. Here I am, a leftie, trying to convince you, a rightie, that people will behave in a self-serving manner, rather than helping others.

We have flipped positions!

I still don't see where you are coming from with this theoretical decentralisation. I think it will be a feeding ground for sociopaths.

You are incorrect - I have been studying sociopathy and psychopathy for last 4 years on and off - it's fascinating.
Larger the pop. number = antisocial behavior increases. Sociopaths operate better when not seen. Ergo the smaller the social group, the easier they are to be seen..

Nothing was ever free - we took, but we expended energy to acquire.. NO energy, no life. There is a cost, always.

Everybody always behaves in a self serving manner. To not do would be illogical. Altruism is a concept.(there is reward - in some fashion - that the proponent thinks is a worthwhile exchange for them. It doesn't have to be money)

Honest, self serving (without the sociopath element), leads to cooperation, and a functioning society.

You could be right. You have an interesting perspective, that's for sure. The problem is that so many aspects of this conversation are deeply theoretical.

Okay, the free thing is becoming one of semantic distinctions. I was referring to a "cost" from a monetary/bartering perspective. I accept the distinction you are making, but we were approaching it from different angles.

The self-serving thing...hmmm. There is self-serving, and then there is self-serving. If you are saying that altruistic behaviour is by definition self serving, then I understand your point, but would argue that one who has the internal reward system for being nice is operating on a different (and better) level than one does not have that internal system.

Blimey. Was that sentence long enough for you?

This is veering into evolutionary sociological territory I think. Dawkins and his selfish gene.