You're viewing a single thread.
I struggle every day with the thought that the corporate noose tightening around all of our necks will not be solved unless we as a society begin to provide some real ... 'mortal incentive' to the oligarchs of the world. No way I could ever do it myself, but I understand the need for it now more than ever.
Normally I'm a solutions guy. I shouldn't be coming up with this as a solution for the issues of the world right now, but it's gotten so egregious that the systems we've put in place FOR THE PEOPLE are not working for the people any longer.Threat of force is a solution.
It's basically what the police exist to do - behave the way we want, or we'll send someone with a gun to take your money, property, freedom, or life.
All authority is derived from the monopolization of violence.
Intellectual authority? Moral authority? I'm not sure it's quite that clear-cut.
Those are subjective, it is indeed that clear cut. Authority is derived by power over others, now try to exert your authority over someone without violence.
Ohhh - "I'm right if you ignore counter-factual examples and other commonly used definitions in favour of my hyper-specific definition."
Sure - if we dismiss examples where authority isn't derived from violence, you're correct. Congratulations.
What factual example are you referring to aside from the ones I directly referenced in my argument.
So explain it. You're the intellectual authority on the matter, now exert this authority without violence. Go on, I'll wait.
You've deferred to me as the authority on this matter. I'm correct without the need to use force.
Examples such as being an intellectual or moral authority don't rely on force. I'll defer to the intellectual authority that is the Oxford English Dictionary on this one, and point out you're definitionally wrong.
In either instance, these authorities aren't maintained by force, only the fact that people view them as the authority. Denying said authority isn't going to see the dictionary police come and drag you away - people will just think you're kinda dumb.
I say you're wrong and assert I am the intellectual authority.
It's king of the hill, time to shove me off homie.
the power to give orders to people
You're own source, order me to do something and watch me ignore your presumed authority.
You already crowned me king of the hill when you declared me the intellectual authority.
If you want to walk that back because you don't like it, feel free, but you'll do nothing more than make yourself look silly and inconsistent - not correct.
I'm not one for monarchs, but it's good to be the king.
the systems we’ve put in place FOR THE PEOPLE
lol, no (or to be more accurate - which people?)
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/08/22/american-democracy-was-never-designed-to-be-democratic
https://libcom.org/article/capitalist-democracy-illusion-choiceYes. Why else would you let women vote? /s
You probably think this doesn't apply to you, but conveniently enough it both address your poor "joke", and your reply bellow about voting - none of your rights were "given" to you either, and "letting" you vote, as someone has already pointed out to you (and as is broken down in the links I shared that you clearly didn't bother reading), a distraction and an illusion of choice to make sure the current power structure (which you are at the very bottom of), remains.
Maybe instead of being a wilfully ignorant smart ass, try actually educating yourself some?I agree with you about the lock-in, that's the joke. The /s was there to indicate that I don't support women voting just because it is powerless. How else do you interpret it?
I disagree that voters are powerless. Being focused on resolving gerrymandering and such isn't helpful. Even with gerrymandering, voters can change things. But they cannot do that as dispersed voters. More in the other comment.
It's not like they're giving us much choice
In a world with private armies, how do you want to threaten oligarchs?
Stop struggling, start supporting a platform in your favorite party that makes the necessary changes.
Voting is snake oil that keeps a disenfranchised nation from resorting to violence. You're mad now, so vote for this person who will change things in 30-40 years...maybe...if you're lucky...if the system lets them...oh sorry we couldn't do it...maybe you should vote more...
When these people are holding the American populace under water, we don't have the time to wait to file a petition of grievances.
Violence gets things done that voting won't. Nothing in American politics has changed without it.
Then hurry up with riots because drones are coming.
You don't have to wait to affect change with votes. Politicians are traders of power. They will implement your request now if it secures their reelection.
Voting is only snake oil because voters are complicit. If you reduce resource usage to sustainable levels, quality of life will go down massively. Voters know and don't want that. Blaming billionaires is an excuse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig
This is why voting is snake oil.
And fuck, this is only 1 TINY video on the topic. There's a whole iceberg of other reasons why voting is ineffective. FPtP, etc...
And I'm also not talking about "resource usage" either. I'm talking about wealth-inequality.
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Voters don't affect change because there is no influence. Create a voting block and offer votes for dedicated policy changes and you will get the change that you want.
They will implement your request now if it secures their reelection.
Looks at the entirety of modern history and lmmfao... 🤣
Also
Voting is only snake oil because voters are complicit
yes, yes you are...
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/14/liberalism-and-fascism-partners-in-crime/
Where in modern history have voters influenced politicians like lobbyists? That's what has to happen to get results.
You are right about the danger of enabling fascists. But insulting me shouldn't be your refutation of the problem that voters benefit from the current situation.
Letting voters take responsibility is very difficult because it requires voters to see the details and their own faults. That doesn't justify the need for establishing a socialist elite. It just shows that it will take more effort than people are currently willing to invest.
Looks at the entirety of modern history and lmmfao… 🤣
I mean, yeah, exactly, look at modern history... People keep complaining about politicians doing nothing, and everywhere you go people complain about how politicians do nothing, and yet those same politicians keep winning elections.
It's literally a meme in my country that every one complains about how corrupt, nepotist, mismanaged, and just bad the leading party is, but how they keep winning anyway. The excuse is usually "the other parties are all too extremist", even when one of those parties are basically the same as the leading party except: so far they have no instances of corruption; they have a very big focus on environmentalism, which is their main platform. And also, guess what? They're the smallest party in parliament, with just 1 member. The second smallest, but with also 1 member, is a more centrist but also mostly environmentally driven party.
For reference, there are 8 parties in parliament right now (before the last elections there were 9), and since we've been a democracy only 2 of those have ever won elections. We've had 16 elections, and 2 parties are 10 to 6. The one with 10 is currently in power after winning with over 50% of votes. And everywhere people keep complaining about them, and you hear scandals and see ministers resigning every other week, and our forests burn every summer, and living costs keep rising, cities are getting too expensive for our citizens, and so on. And so the meme lives on.
This isn't some invisible force casting those votes, it's the people. It's the people who cast all those votes, and it's also the people who, by the way, made the far right party the third-biggest party in parliament in the last elections.
So yes, please do look at modern history, and understand that for the most part people are getting what they voted for. If you want politicians to act different, vote for different politicians, which is what the other user is saying.
Voting is snake oil, but it's snake oil because the majority of people stop it from actually working.
Liberals believe in the invisible hand that will redistribute wealth and regulate the economy; people like you believe in an invisible hand that is responsible for all of the world's problems, when the reality is that people hold most of the power, but the majority are either complacent, or actively working to keep things the way they are.
Same way you deal with commanders in chief of real armies - just ask JFK... or any of these guys for that matter.
Asymmetrical class warfare - particularly when you have the benefit of overwhelming numerical superiority while being dispersed through the broad population is devastatingly effective. There's a reason the best funded military in the world is consistently drawn into quagmires with villagers brandishing soviet-era small arms and improvised explosives.
Have you ignored the part about drones in my comment?
Look up why South Vietnam failed. Watch the training videos of the Afghan army. There was no will to win, for whatever reason.
If you have overwhelming numerical superiority, you don't need war, you can vote.
Have you ignored the part about drones in my comment?
No - because it was posted after my comment in a different thread - I'm not reviewing your entire post history before responding, let alone travelling through time to do so. If you're going to be snide, be less stupid about it please.
The Viet Cong and Taliban tied up the US army for decades, costing them trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives. You don't need military superiority to pose a mortal or financial threat to billionaires.
Sorry, my fault. I thought you were replying there. I will try to be less stupid.
JFK and the other politicians are no billionaires.
The Viet Cong and Taliban made billionaires. The tax payers had to pay.
Now add the drones that can do a JFK on every rebellion leader.
I think it is easier to use votes to solve problems.
JFK and the other politicians are no billionaires.
Correct, but JFK didn't have a paltry security detail - he had the protection of the entire US defence and intelligence apparatus, and how effective was that against one man and his rifle? The others are variations in the same theme, some more relevant than others.
The Viet Cong and Taliban made billionaires. The tax payers had to pay.
They also used their meagre resources to cause massive problems and expense for the US.
The point of all this is that all the money in the world only grants these people limited protections.
I strongly favour democratic solutions where they're available (revolution without sustainable preparation is where communist regimes turn autocratic almost every time), but understand the democracy-breaking political influence billionaires are able to buy. If a couple of your Kochs and Murdochs start meeting grisly ends, the rest of their ilk might get the message, stand aside and let democracy run its course for once.
Gated communities. Politicians die because they have to meet their voters.
Since the US has global influence, politicians and voters are influenced globally. Koch and Murdoch are just standing out.
Voters have to wise up. I don't believe that a random group of assassins can solve the problem.
Rome ended in tyranny because even the educated elite wasn't wise enough. It's difficult but we have to be better. Assassinations are a distraction from that problem that needs to be solved.
Do you honestly think I'm suggesting that a couple of dead billionaires solves the problem?
If this is still your impression after pre-reading my last paragraph, I'm not sure what to say.
If it's not, why the strawman? These are actual problems we all face - how are we to solve them if we're lying to dismiss solutions we don't like?
I focused on
where they’re available
Which paragraph? I am sorry but I had the impression that you see assassinations as solution. I am also not sure what the strawman is to you.
Let's step back. What's your approach?
To answer both questions...
I strongly favour democratic solutions where they're available (revolution without sustainable preparation is where communist regimes turn autocratic almost every time), but understand the democracy-breaking political influence billionaires are able to buy. If a couple of your Kochs and Murdochs start meeting grisly ends, the rest of their ilk might get the message, stand aside and let democracy run its course for once.
It's not how the real progress happens, but it's certainly likely to help things along.
Did we have drones in afghanistan? Because the US sure did have trouble there. How many people are in Afghanistan? How many are in the US?
Afghanistan was pre-chatGPT. We are not there yet but soon, drones will operate automatically. Numbers won't matter.
There isn’t a party leader that is interested in making any real changes that don’t happen within their term. They’re not motivated to be the best person for the world as a whole and really they’re motivated by the short term and re-election.
Use that. Organize and offer the votes for their reelection.
