User Controls
We need to institute a user hierarchy
-
2018-04-09 at 12:20 AM UTCHe's clearly talking about class warfare.
-
2018-04-09 at 12:27 AM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist don't you mean implement? as in 'we need to implement a user hierachy'?
.
They’re synonyms in this context. Why don’t you try to avoid correcting people on their grammar, ya ain’t so gud at it, u git me.in·sti·tute
ˈinstəˌt(y)o͞ot
noun
1.a society or organization having a particular object or common factor, especially a scientific, educational, or social one.
"the Institute for Advanced Studies"
2.archaic
a commentary, treatise, or summary of principles, especially concerning law.
verb
1.set in motion or establish (something, especially a program, system, or inquiry). -
2018-04-09 at 12:33 AM UTCGive some people the majority of the power and centralize it to a party of people that plan the actions of the market and society as a whole.
EVISCERATE THE PROLETARIAT ! -
2018-04-09 at 12:33 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Well that's exactly my point. It's not communism's fault that dictatorships of the proletariat often operate on immense and violent political repression and fail to transform into real communisms either. You're making the exact same argument as the "not real communism crap" you mentioned earlier.
Fair enough.
Originally posted by Lanny I'm down on capitalism as a modern institution a lot but I do appreciate that there's a beautiful model of decentralized resource allocation in free markets, and I think in contexts that aren't nation state economies it's optimal.
Then we agree. The problem is the nation-state.
Originally posted by Lanny A very non-serious but I think interesting example artificial economies like those in video games where there are no real externalities and systematic restraint of extra-economic activities (e.g. you can't establish a monopoly, or there are mechanics to mitigate monopolies) it produces really interesting and efficient economic configurations.
EVE Online comes to mind.
Originally posted by Lanny The problem is this isn't how real capitalisms work. Externalities do exist, monopolies can be formed, market participants act irrationally all the time and aren't purely self interested.
We've discussed monopolies at length before so i won't go over that again for now. But say i agree with all the rest i really don't think a government is the best solution to fix these problems.
Originally posted by Lanny I mean I agree that I would much rather live in a western "democratic" capitalism than the USSR. I see the point you're making here, and it's true, it's better to live places that happen to call themselves capitalisms than those that call themselves communisms. But the USSR was never a communism, not even a deformed or poorly functioning one, it satisfied none of the criteria that define communist states. I think it's reasonable to argue that the USSR is further from a true communism than, say, the USA is from a true* capitalist economy. But even if it's not, you'll notice I never criticized some failing of an actual system that's casually called capitalism as a fundamental issue with capitalism. You were the one that made a claim about how communist societies are organized that was simply untrue, even with respect to "real world communism" as there was no real world system being talked about in which "the party" exists.
* taking true to mean the ancap formation of capitalism I assume you're defending here.
Alright.
Fair enough -
2018-04-09 at 12:36 AM UTCright back at you bae
-
2018-04-09 at 12:38 AM UTCAnarcho-capitalists and egalitarian leftists coming together to agree on a system of governance and economy that satisfies everyone's expectations: this is what I love about this place.
But we need a strict user hierarchy, like some real feudalism shit. -
2018-04-09 at 12:40 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Anarcho-capitalists and egalitarian leftists coming together to agree on a system of governance and economy that satisfies everyone's expectations: this is what I love about this place.
But we need a strict user hierarchy, like some real feudalism shit.
A vegetarian feudalist lmao -
2018-04-09 at 2:09 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Anarcho-capitalists and egalitarian leftists coming together to agree on a system of governance and economy that satisfies everyone's expectations: this is what I love about this place.
But we need a strict user hierarchy, like some real feudalism shit.
Cum.swapper detected -
2018-04-09 at 2:09 AM UTC
-
2018-04-09 at 2:12 AM UTC
-
2018-04-09 at 2:14 AM UTC
-
2018-04-09 at 2:19 AM UTC
-
2018-04-09 at 3 AM UTC
-
2018-04-09 at 11 AM UTC
Originally posted by BeigeWarlock show me the lady friend you baited him with
SHOW ME THE MUD FLAPS OF THE WHEEL OF SUNFLOWER SEEDS
its a psychological tactic to 84, its genius really, the attic was always running towards the pine trees with a zero calorie sunflower substitute. the duty vapor cx .38 was always an interesting biscuit.
-
2018-04-09 at 12:12 PM UTC
-
2018-04-09 at 12:57 PM UTCi wrote this idea while i was in jail. i copyrighted it by emailing it to myself months ago so feel free to steal my idea and i'll just get rich by suing you, you can do all the hard work.
The leaderless revolution
ok, so it occurred to me that leaders are the real cancer in society. Even if they entered political life with the best intentions, it soon happens that they become so far removed from the reality of most peoples everyday life that their policies become bizarre and totally disconnected from most peoples reality. Their need for constant re-election becomes paramount and so they have no choice but to pander to the media and the big business that finances their campaigns.
Before recent times leaders were necessary, they enabled a mass population to organize, and this is very important to a civilized society. Important decisions need to be made that thousands or millions of people just could not possibly all come together to consult and agree on. But a leader can only possibly see things from his own perspective. Of course he can consult others but he is still making decisions based on his own perception of others points of view. The longer a leader exists within his bubble, the further removed from everyday reality he will inevitably become. Of course some manage this better than others but name one leader through history that hasn't succumbed to this phenomenon.
Democracy strives to offer a solution to this problem and to be fair has made some progress. By electing officials to represent and supposedly be held accountable at the ballot box. this does in theory at least, give leaders the incentive to make decisions that are fairer and geared towards serving everybody in society equally. But does the reality work like that? We see a constant stream of election manifesto's and pledges that are then completely reversed once the officials get into office. The two party system gives little choice and rarely does either one suit any elector completely, or even close to that. The choice for most at the ballot box is simply the lesser of two evils. We all know that its either one party or the other and we'll still likely get pretty much the same old bullshit from either of them anyway.
Of course for the few months preceding an election all the candidates will fall over themselves to get media coverage, kiss babies and tell us all the things we want to hear from our leaders. But they really are just telling us any old shit to get us to re-elect them. They know full well its bullshit the moment it comes out of their mouths.
Its like choosing somebody to go and do your grocery shopping for you, you give them a list of exactly what you want. But then they go to the store and just buy whatever they think you should eat. And use your money to pay for it.
Democracy in principle is a great idea. The idea that everybody equally gets to participate in the decision making process that affects their lives. But I think it was ahead of its time. The technology of the day didn't allow for full participation and the polling system was the only effective means of enabling it. This is widely open to manipulation and corruption. And obviously it is very inconvenient, in fact likely impossible for the masses to go to the polls everyday to give their input into every decision.
A government is about organizing the population. But with the polling system the people charged with doing the organizing get free reign to organize in a way that is more beneficial to them and their peers. And why wouldn't they? I think we all would in that situation if we were honest.
So what is the solution?
We get rid of leaders? But if we get rid of leaders then how would we manage to organize a mass population? And its not like those currently enjoying the benefits of controlling an entire nation would be likely to just relinquish their power and control. We've seen many wars fought for them to keep control of exactly that.
Think about this, millions of people will vote on who wins the x-factor on a Saturday night. The process takes literally seconds. So the technology to enable everybody to vote on a single issue is clearly there and has been for some time.
But how would everybody know what to vote on? Politicians discuss the issues in detail and make decisions based on the results of those discussions. - but politicians are notorious for having their own agenda and for using power games and manipulation among themselves. Not to mention that it makes it very easy for outside forces who have money and power to manipulate the politicians. It gives them a much smaller and easier target to focus their manipulation on.
We don't need leaders any more, we need thinkers and administrators. We could employ professional thinkers whose job it would be was to think over and discuss all the countries relevant issues of the day. Go over every possible solution they could think of(just like politicians do) and look at the pro's and cons of each possibility. But at the end of the discussion period, all the possible solutions are then put up to public vote online. Each option could have a description and list the pro's and cons. The internet is full of discussion forums, so there is no reason why the very same issues could not be put up for public discussion running parallel to the thinkers discussion at the same time. The thinkers could then see what the public have to say on the issues while they are discussing them and then take that into consideration too. Of course the public discussion would probably be huge and difficult for any one person to read every post. But having a simple thanks/star button in the discussion forum would enable all the best ideas to be referenced easily. Thank buttons are common in most internet forums.
This would enable much greater efficiency within a countries system as the current method using politicians will most often see legislation on a single issue take a year or more to resolve. This alone makes the current method slow and out-dated(and it wastes a huge amount of money and resources in the process.) And there would be no chance of leaders being open to corruption, blackmail, media manipulation, ignorance or just down right stupidity.
Once a decision had been made by the people then the administrators would be given the task of turning that decision into reality. The relative resources would be made available to them to do so. The issue, once implemented could be put up for a review after a certain period and the people could then easily decide if they feel the solution is working in practice and they want to stick with that option, or if they want to change to a different option if the current system isn't actually working in practice.
So to run a country all you need is an internet forum with a voting system? - pretty much, of course it would have to be very secure as those control freak types are never going to just go away and will very likely look at ways to hack the system. Having it open source in some way would also enable the people to be sure it wasn't being rigged by the site owners. But this is technology that is already available and has been for many years.
But of course those control freaks who are in control now are never going to go for this. In fact they would do absolutely everything within their power(which is a lot of power) to make sure this never saw the light of day. - Only they would actually be pretty powerless to stop it. This would be the will of the people and if the people realized it, their power combined is way too powerful for the few to stop it. A simple internet forum, similar to what i've just mentioned should be put up as an experiment, just to observe and test its efficiency. It would enable the people to discuss all the relevant issues of the day, propose solutions, and allow everybody to vote on them. We could then compare the solutions that the people come up with to the solutions our politicians come up with. Of course we'd have to wait a while for those slow, lumbering politicians to get their shit together to compare results to. All that manipulating, being blackmailed or bought off takes time you know. But I suspect the peoples solutions to the problems would be far more realistic, relevant and creative to anything the politicians offered.
Once this site had shown its worth and potential we could then put a question up to the vote on the site.
Would the people like to adopt this system in place of the current system?
If the people vote yes then it is a simple step to getting rid of the current system. The people just choose to collectively ignore the current system and continue with this new system. The thinkers and administrators would have to be chosen and appointed but that wouldn't be much of a problem. In fact the thinkers could already be appointed and be working from their own section of the site before that question was even put to the vote. The thinkers should be picked from all walks of life, young and old, rich and poor, black and white etc, so as to offer diversity and not enable a certain section of society the chance to dominate the discussions. There would be absolutely nothing the current leaders could do to stop this, and to even try would show them in a very anti-democratic light. With nobody listening to them or paying them taxes, their power would literally disappear overnight. It would be like a puff of smoke dissipating into the atmosphere.
A very crucial point to realize here is that wars are the power games of leaders. They are the ones who have the real interest in wars being fought and won. The man in the street has little to gain from war and most, without leaders convincing them otherwise, would not choose to start one. They are the ones who have everything to lose from war. So if every country had adopted this system, do you think the people collectively from any country would then so choose to go to war with another country? Its unlikely isn't it? So the fact that this system could potentially bring peace on earth makes it totally worth at least trying it out. I know that's a huge thing to think about, but does any other system come even potentially close to realizing this goal?
Apart from that, implementing this system would be unlikely to change anybodies normal day to day living. You would still live with your families and go to work, socialize, tend to your needs etc. but this would make things way more efficient. Government resources would stop being wasted and stolen. The elite would no longer be able to control the majority in their favor. People could still get rich, but they would have to earn it. But I think we would see opportunity get dished out more evenly which would benefit us all and not marginalize certain individuals or groups. And if we ended wars just think how much of the human races resources would be saved and put to much better use.
I've thought a few times as to what to call this ideal, this new way of doing things. Things like neo-democracy or real democracyism or some stupid shit like that. But this isn't an ism at all, this is a completely new way for the human race to organize itself, moving on from the retardation that is isms. I think its long overdue for the human race to move on from the situation where there are people living in obscene luxury owning billions that they will never spend whilst millions starve, cannot access basic healthcare, have nowhere to live, have no opportunity to make a living, cannot even get clean water to drink, whilst we all live subjected to stupid laws that just make problems worse and half the time are only designed to control us all through exaggerated fear. And just end up costing the people more money that could have been put to good use in the first place.
And to all the naysayers, I say you should support the trial experiment of this idea because its failure would then prove your point, wouldn't it?
In fact I urge you to discuss this idea in great detail. I'm sure there are many factors I alone could not imagine and i'm also totally open to the fact that I may be missing something here. This is how I see it tho, and I really think its something worth pursuing. And I am definitely open to improving it in any way imaginable.
I'm not saying this is a solution to all man's problems. But it could certainly enable us to free up a wealth of resources that are wasted due to our current ways of doing things. It would make the human race way more efficient as a whole.
. -
2018-04-09 at 12:58 PM UTCfeel free to discuss the ins and outs. i welcome all views.
. -
2018-04-09 at 1:02 PM UTCNARCassist dyed his pubes ginger
-
2018-04-09 at 1:07 PM UTCmore like strawberry blonde
. -
2018-04-09 at 4:28 PM UTC
