this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
781 points (97.4% liked)
Technology
62401 readers
4207 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, the most likely formulation is free market socialism, as in, lots of worker-owned co-ops, but goods are traded in a free market. Those co-ops need to be relatively small, to avoid any one org from having too much control.
Agreed. And cops. You tend to get what you pay for.
Sure, and the way to stop drugs from coming in is to make that trade unprofitable. Legalize drugs, and provide safe ways to use even the hardest drugs. If you do that, the few people who want it can get it in a safe way (i.e. trip out at your local pharmacy), and you don't get all of the violence that comes with black market trade.
But no, "drugs bad," and the public wants to control "bad" things. The government shouldn't be deciding what is "good" or "bad," but how to provide a desired service in a way that doesn't hurt others. Ideally, we end up with open borders because criminals no longer have an incentive to relocate (at least more-so than regular immigrants).
True, and that's going to be the case regardless of the system you choose. The bigger the potential profit, the more care needs to be taken in crafting and enforcing laws.
They don't also own the railroads and whatnot. The issue w/ Standard Oil was the sheer amount of infrastructure they controlled, not that they were the biggest player in their market. As long as the profit motive is to produce goods at competitive rates, it's not a problem that they're raking in crazy profits. But once they get a monopoly, the incentive changes to killing competition so they can raise prices, which also gives them massive leverage against government (no more oil unless I get ).
The way it seems to work like the typical boom/bust business cycle. In the stock market, we tend to get 7-10 years of boom, followed by 1-2 years of bust, and the cycle repeats. Likewise, we get a build-up of problems, and then we pass some key legislation or do a high-profile anti-trust breakup, and the system kind of resets.
The issue we're left with is whether these corrections are sufficient, or if, like stock valuations, there's an upward trend of giving corporations too much power. I worry there is, because we don't seem willing to make the painful changes we need to get a deep enough correction (e.g. we should've let more banks fail in 2008, fix election process, etc).
I guess the main difference is that I think things are salvageable. However, we need to rethink the interaction between government and the market, and stop expecting government to solve all our problems. Government is a pretty big hammer, and we need to be very careful breaking it out since it can cause a lot of problems in a hurry.
To be honest, I think we are very ideologically aligned. I agree that government power is something that should be used with very precise care. Look at what happens for example when we introduce Pell Grants, giving lower income kids the opportunity to go to college.
That sounds great, right? Who doesn't support that? Well, I sure want poor kids to be afforded the opportunity to go to school.
But look at what actually happens. Now you have a whole new class of people with a sizable chunk of government money. The demand for college goes up. Tuition rates skyrocket. The few thousand you get from the Pell Grant is now meaningless and it counter intuitively costs you more even with the grant.
Who benefits? Not the kids. Not the working class. The college administrators.
Kamala was campaigning "taxes incentives for first time homeowners!" Great. Who is going to say to no to that, right? Support young families. Sure.
What would inevitably happen? Large increase in spending => large increase in price. So if they get a $10,000 tax credit but the houses are $15,000 more expensive- what's the difference? These are arbitrary numbers, obviously, and not borne out of some analysis.
But who would benefit? Not young families. Banks and land owners.
Government action, usually disguised as something to help is almost always going to be twisted to hurt average people.
But yes, I agree 100%. I rather like Chomsky's take on this. I'm not an anarchist but he has advocated before for a system where every single use of government power should be consistently and continually challenged. Every single time the government spends a dollar, it needs to be transparent and justified and there needs to be a way to challenge it.
The thing is, government spending is not inherently a bad thing. Government action sometimes is exactly what is needed. For example in an economic crisis, government stimulus can be enough to turn things around or at least ameliorate the situation for the working class.
But and the big but - and the but that basically had made me lose all faith in democracy over the last 10 years or so is the way you put it
Politicians do not do what is rational. They do what is popular. These are two separate things entirely. And even worse, they can modify what is popular with a variety of mechanisms. For a simple example- look at the death tax. You ask average Americans whether they support a death tax, they will say of course not. It sounds absurd, right?
If you call it an inheritance tax, all of a sudden majority of people support it.
So yeah, I think you're right in that we more or less align on what the ideal system should be but you still believe in the ideals of the Enlightenment and believe that egalitarianism and liberty is possible.
I think humanity is brutal and stupid by nature and we are bound to be ruled by people with strength. I think all government systems eventually deteriorate into fancy feudalism.
For a bit of an absurd statement- I think what we need to do is create a constitution that is very explicit. And then what we need to do is let an AI enforce it. Assuming the AI is objective and not able to be influenced, I think then and only then would we have a free society. And the irony is- we wouldn't be in control of it.
Maybe I'm just a pessimist about human nature. Don't misinterpret me, I consider myself a humanist. I like humans. I feel empathy for others. I want the best world possible for everyone.
But I think humans in a group are stupid. The crowd is like a locust swarm, destroying without thinking. It's sad