• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

I don't like giving charity

Lagomorph

Philosorabbit
Local time
Today, 17:30
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
552
Location
Down the hole with Alice
#51
when people say systemic, they're just referring to a collection of behaviours and thought-patterns individuals hold

you don't get to handwave things that happen at a systemic level and be like

"it seems like there's a trend where the actions of individuals are seen for what they are instead of institutional"

as if there's some mystical humans who are somehow not human and influenced by the institutions they're raised in, believe in, spend time in, deliberately become part of
I phrased it like that because I suspect there isn't exactly a readily accessible peer-reviewed study to support me. I hesitate to make statements that I can't definitively back up, because it's an integrity thing for me.

Humans are fallible, and human qualities exist independent of institutional boundaries. Pedophilia and the sort are human qualities in this context, not universal by any means, or defining, but I’d expect them to arise in humans independently of institutions. If those statements are true, then if we find differences in the manifestation of indiscretions or the damage they cause between institutions of different structures, they are a result of differences in institutional structure and some structures are clearly enabling. It only follows then, that a change in structure could produce a change in manifestation.

I suspect the loosely organized structures of liberal quakerism and universalism might result in fewer and/or less severe moral indescretions, to the point where there’s no difference between what’s seen in religious vs nonreligious groups or the general populace, or where they even compare favorably. Any of those should compare favorably to strongly hierarchical religious groups. Do you have any evidence that disproves this?
 

Lagomorph

Philosorabbit
Local time
Today, 17:30
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
552
Location
Down the hole with Alice
#52
@Hadoblado

That's the thing. You can't assume that official dogma is someone's belief system, because that's not reflected in reality. Individuals routinely choose which parts to believe and which parts apply to them. I'm not just doing this to be slippery in the context of this argument. It’s like the letter of the law vs case law. Despite the text, case law determines what the law actually is, according to someone’s subjective interpretation.

Where is "one true church" in the superceding dogma of The Book? Even if it was there, do you think a majority of Christians have actually read the Bible, or even know of historical events like Nicaea? A huge number hear only what's read during mass, selected by that priest to suit an agenda, and maybe the occasional psalm or something. Some only get it twice a year (:D), on X-mas and Easter, or just check the box for Catholic because their parents baptized them as infants.

If God is defined according to the same book that includes "thou shalt have no other gods before me," that phrase takes on an entirely different meaning; the same in the context of the "one true church." Those boundaries disappear if God is "I am."

Now, why do some believe in an exclusive "one true church?" If humans weren't fallible, they wouldn't be humans. If only they could be rabbits.
 

Lagomorph

Philosorabbit
Local time
Today, 17:30
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
552
Location
Down the hole with Alice
#53
Pizza I will define you ... just wait.
Can we get this on video? :D
Do you still claim that the problems with the provision of social services by public and private institutions open new opportunities for transformation for the church/religion?

In what new and better ways small groups of theists (Quakers, Universalists) could fill gaps in a system where conditions are dictated by government and a free market?

BTW We don't hear about abuses in smaller religious organizations so often because it is easier to hide them. Their existence is out of the most people's attention. See sects.
I claim that by wresting control of social services from charities, religious organizations will be forced into a new niche if they want to survive. When I say new, I mean it’s at least new to the typical church, as in, if religion with a primary focus on existential meaning vs superficiality has been done before, it's been a really long time. This might indeed be new to society, not in the sense that it would be pervasive or define society in any way, but in the sense that it would be a new, more specialized component part in the context of existing society, with clearer boundaries. However, I don’t want to pontificate something that’s not conclusive.

Quakerism and Universalism offer unscripted, no-strings-attached opportunities for what I would describe as a meta-awareness of being; shared bonding, experience, and interaction in an existential context, with plenty of opportunities for self-imposed retreat and solitude also, and it appears this is offered within a structure that isn't prone to abuse. Though it's very loose, Q & U differ from sects because there's a shared belief system and a universal expectation of how things operate across all congregations, and Q & U don't have the same hierarchical structure as sects. Where's the charismatic leader? The scapegoat? The anthem? The forced isolation? The anti-intellectualism? The restrictive propaganda? It's pretty much the opposite of cult brainwashing. Structure has nothing to do with size.

Charities will continue to exist because various forces dictate as much, but this isn't necessarily tied into Q & U vs systemic demand within the populace. In the U.S., we have food stamps, but we also have a ton of food charities because some people feel an ethical imperitive, others want a tax break, and otherwise we'd be wasting a lot more food than we already do. Meanwhile, the free market says it makes more sense to pump excess food into 6:1 fcr livestock or a landfill than it does to give it away for human consumption. The "true" free market says "Just nix expiration dates and sell it all. Who cares about disease risk? Let the consumer decide." and the government says "The electorate who gave us power does, and their tolerance for risk is lower than yours."
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 16:30
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,733
Location
...
#54
*deep breath*

Okay. This is frustrating. I'm posting as a member.

The way you people are acting it's as if nobody should be held accountable for their system of beliefs.

If Catholicism, which Lagomorph decided was a good example, is the first entry on the article when I jam in a precursory search in wikipedia for "one true church", I think I'm being reasonable when I say they are the self-appointed one true church.

I think you're being squirmy worms Squormy wirms.

You might subjectively overturn their self-identity, and say that by proclaiming themselves the sole arbiters of truth that they are just "seeking transcendence" like everyone else. But that's not what they believe. That's your takeaway, and you're free to believe it but you've provided no evidence for it. If the Catholic Church says they are A, and I say they are A, I'm not too interested in unjustified but convenient opinion B.

Even if they were seeking transcendance like everyone else, this doesn't even refute my statement. They can both be true!

"Getting caught up in the specifics of the teachings?". You've got to be kidding. This is a central tenet. "Being too literal"? I'm saying this is both the stated and de facto reality. There will be exceptions, but those aren't the central teachings of Catholicism.

And no, in order to make the above statement I'm not going to get drawn into "defining God" or "defining religion" or anything else. Unless you have a point to make, you're just shifting the burden onto me to answer questions with relevance I am yet to understand.

So either take a position and justify it, or stop filibustering.

*puts mod cap back on*

@Cognisant
There's a bit of a derail, but you've been part of it so I'm assuming you don't mind? If you want anything moved, just ask.
I am not really trying to condone the Catholic Church. My point is bigger than that. My point is that religion, in general, and pretty much any/all religion(s) started, usually with an individual, where the goal was the transformation of the individual into its full potential. You can see this in BOTH Jesus AND the Buddha. They both basically believe that one can become something more.

As far as that goes, religions is largely a perversion of these individuals teachings. Why? Because it becomes more about organizing people than what the individual tried to actually accomplish. Government is also a way to organize people, which was my original point in this thread. The problem isn't religion or the government, but the aspirations to control other people and society as a whole.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Tomorrow, 07:00
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,157
#55
Okay, Lago, but you're choosing for them.

Also, we're talking about systems of belief, not individual belief. Sure, that there is a drift mechanism from the centralised tenets is a decent point, but you can't pretend that when religions are treated as belief system, they don't largely consider themselves mutually exclusive.

It doesn't make it any less a lie just because some people don't believe it.

Also

You always do this reactive 'play' where you reframe things fluidly so that it's hard to say anything concretely because you're constantly redefining everything. Nobody ever gets to react to what you believe.

So when you say that it's not true that religions are mutually exclusive, can you please try to evidence how many people believe both in their religion and someone else's?
How many people do you think genuinely believe that both Catholicism and Islam are correct worldviews?
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Tomorrow, 07:00
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,157
#56
@QT
Okay, that's a fine point. I agree to some extent, but think it's impractical. Society is organised for efficiency, we're only where we're at today because of how efficiently we're organised. When you remove those layers of top-down organisation completely, there are going to be difficulties. Maybe that thought is worth it's own thread?
 

Lagomorph

Philosorabbit
Local time
Today, 17:30
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
552
Location
Down the hole with Alice
#57
You always do this reactive 'play' where you reframe things fluidly so that it's hard to say anything concretely because you're constantly redefining everything. Nobody ever gets to react to what you believe.
I was actually thinking about making a thread about this, but hesitated because it's an INFJ thing, so there might not be interest in it here. I might edit this out later and make an OP.

This is because of tertiary Ti; puer position; playful use. Two parts:

1) In myself and INFJs in general, we have difficulty finding the right words to describe what we visualize. Like when I first used the word "split" ITT, I visualized, in 3-D, a fracture separating along a horizontal axis, dividing a holarchical bureaucratic Markov tree and redefining its remaining nodes into a more integrated, fluid, and participatory structure. Dafuq do I transmit that to another human? "Split" seemed to fit. This is also why I like definitions and semantics.

2) I'm learning and refining my understanding as I go, testing the assumptive extrapolations of Ni, actively forming my beliefs. I rarely if ever come into or start a discussion knowing something with certainty, or with intent to sway a discussion a certain way. If there are indicators pointing a certain direction, I follow them, when I realize something new, I note it, and when I make a mistake, I integrate it rather than hide it, whether that be through an apology, or a shift, like I did here. My every action here is an act of discovery and exploration, whether for myself or others.

As I've become more aware of my own process over time, my language has changed to more accurately reflect the meta-awareness of my knowledge and intent. You frequently see me using words like "may," "seems," "appears," "if".... and you see me using more disclaimers as well, in recognition of how my words or actions may impact others emotionally.
Okay, Lago, but you're choosing for them.

Also, we're talking about systems of belief, not individual belief. Sure, that there is a drift mechanism from the centralised tenets is a decent point, but you can't pretend that when religions are treated as belief system, they don't largely consider themselves mutually exclusive.

It doesn't make it any less a lie just because some people don't believe it.

So when you say that it's not true that religions are mutually exclusive, can you please try to evidence how many people believe both in their religion and someone else's?
How many people do you think genuinely believe that both Catholicism and Islam are correct worldviews?
I'm not choosing for them. I don't know what they believe, but I know what they could believe, and I know that my lifetime collection of observations doesn't support the idea that the majority believe that particularly contentious part of mainline dogma.

Individuals collectively are...? Who is "they" in "but you can't pretend that when religions are treated as belief system, they don't largely consider themselves mutually exclusive."? I do recognize that examining only the "law" component without the "case law" part, some of them are mutually exclusive (there are like, >4,000 of them, you know). I think the next step is basically applying pascal's wager to believers of mutual exclusivity. If true, superceding scripture would show them to be wrong, at least regarding Christianity, because the churches that spout the one true church stuff were founded on a dogma in the Bible that contradicts that, which is why I brought up intrinsic human fallibility.

I thought the implied lie, initially via Cognisant, was an afterlife, an unknowable thing that's impossible to prove or disprove, and a thing with no clear definition whatsoever that I can ascertain.

There are a few approaches to the remainder. The easiest one: It's not really meaningful to generalize religion as mutually exclusive when, within the same "religion" category, you have competing belief systems like universalism that have dogmas explicitly stating otherwise. In that case it seems more like believers in exclusivity are merely black sheep within a more accepting and open-minded family. And of course there's always multiverse theory where everything is simultaneously true all the time, something something Schrodinger, modal realism, but again, not exactly testable to my knowledge. But hey, it's a possibility, and until it's definitively disproven, it can't be denied as such.

Non-exclusivity doesn't necessarily mean that the entirety of competing beliefs are true. I'd wager that there's a statistically insignificant difference in the amount of variance between the "case law" beliefs of Christians vs Muslims. How one perceives the "other/s" is a factor that shouldn't be neglected when assessing the decision-making process.

I dislike anecdotes, but that's the best that can be offered here. I've spent a decent amount of time interacting with Catholics, asking probably about 300 of them whether they believe non-Catholics should go to hell. >80% have said no. The cool part to me is that the "yes" responses seem to cluster around certain personality types with tertiary or inferior Fi.

Tangential, but there's also a temporal and experiential component, which can only be assessed in terms of "potential"; what potentially might happen, because beliefs aren't static. A similar phenomenon is seen when a husband and wife were raised in different faiths. All of a sudden things change when you love your enemy. We know it happens and there's probably data out there, but it's going to be difficult to nail down when a measure of lifetime occurrance could strongly contradict a snapshot of the population at a point in time, if your interest is in discovering the holistic truth, like mine is.
Meta-awareness in action, lol:
 

Animekitty

(ISFP)-(E)(N)(T)(P)
Local time
Today, 15:30
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,783
Location
subjective
#58
How can Christianity be a lie if "Satan is the father of lies" and Christians are the enemy of Satan. What lie are we talking about again? Is socialism involved? A lie is intentional.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Tomorrow, 07:00
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,157
#59
Reactive play:
You had similar rationalisations about how your type influences what you do when you thought you were ENTP. Ne fit better IMO, because your process is divergent. "But have you thought of this?". I don't believe in MBTI or Jungian archetypes, and this sort of this is a big reason why.

Second point too long to succinctly summarise:
Gah that's way too much. I read it, but you hop around so quickly it's difficult to make out what your central point is and address it.
So we at least agree that believers of mutually exclusive religions are necessarily mostly wrong? Can we agree on that at least?

It's seriously hard to have a conversation with you.
 

Lagomorph

Philosorabbit
Local time
Today, 17:30
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
552
Location
Down the hole with Alice
#60
It's not a rationalization, just a reflection of my understanding at that point in time, though I understand how you can see it differently. I'm not going to press you on it, but if you have the interest and the free time, the Beebe model actually makes sense: https://www.intpforum.com/threads/the-beebe-model.27372/

Yeah, we can agree.

I know. I do my best. irl and visual aides would be so much easier.
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Tomorrow, 08:30
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
2,811
#61
The pope is representative of peters line of succession but in east orthodoxies (not really call by that) 11 other disciple of Jesus existed not just Peter. And the line of succession was broken over a thousand years ago making the current pope unrelated to Jesus or peter but only a figurehead not gods one true representative on earth. So I am skeptical they are the "one true church" because 12 should exist as 12 disciples existed. By definition what does "one true church" even mean? There should be just The Church. no titles or anything. I digress.
The idea that Peter, and not the other disciples, is the foundation of the church comes from this verse:

Matthew 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

So, Jesus said to Peter that upon him would be built the church.

What do you mean by the succession being broken? Can you point out to me specifically when this was?

Also:
As for an argument potentially against the idea of there being one true church (aside from the fact that, in the time that the events of the New Testament after the crucifixion took place that there were multiple churches, with there being 7 churches of Asia written about in Revelations), look to Daniel:

Daniel 2:43 "And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. "

This is a reference to the Roman Empire, and its division. I am being rather speculative in supposing that this may mean that there cannot be a unified church.

Animekitty said:
How can Christianity be a lie if "Satan is the father of lies" and Christians are the enemy of Satan. What lie are we talking about again? Is socialism involved? A lie is intentional.
Matthew 23:13 "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. "

The religious leaders in the time that Jesus taught were hypocrites; the leaders of today may well often fall under the same category

Mark 13:6 "For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. "

This verse has differing interpretations; some say that it refers to people who speak as Christians but are at heart deceiving, as you'll see prominently today, for example many Televangelists who are out for a profit, rather than out to preach the Truth.

On the other hand,

Mark 9:38-40

"38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

40 For he that is not against us is on our part."

Though, this states of course that the person performs a miracle. It seems not to state that simply speaking as though a Christian makes it so.
 

Kuu

>>Loading
Local time
Today, 16:30
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
3,395
Location
The wired
#62
It is depressing to think people prefer to endlessly argue about religion and nobody has any comment at all about cybernetic socialism.
 

Lagomorph

Philosorabbit
Local time
Today, 17:30
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
552
Location
Down the hole with Alice
#63
It is depressing to think people prefer to endlessly argue about religion and nobody has any comment at all about cybernetic socialism.
I didn't touch it because you posted it in response to Cog.

I like the targeting of capitalism, so allies in that sense, but on the time scale my thinking typically operates on when examining the future, it seems like the epitome of stagnation. I'd expect novelty-seeking of the populace to be suppressed in a logistic pattern, ultimately shattering the stability of the system into a temporary developmental phase due to failure to integrate its component parts, and their actual vs recognized needs, holistically. Reminds me of The Giver.

I'd expect this to have its best shot atm in Scandinavia, and within a single generation I'd expect competing ideologies to be in a race to contain each other to maintain their existence.
 

Animekitty

(ISFP)-(E)(N)(T)(P)
Local time
Today, 15:30
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,783
Location
subjective
#64
What do you mean by the succession being broken? Can you point out to me specifically when this was?
I read several wiki pages on early, medieval and late popes. A pope must choose who his successor is to keep the line open but several popes died without choosing the next pope and so voting is done by church leadership. Imagine a lineage where biologically the next person is always related to the founding ancestor. Descendency is not a voting matter. Peter needed to choose his successor and so on and so on. By voting this breaks the line of apostolic decent. Their needs to be a consistent line of pope approving the next pope otherwise it is a broken chain.
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Tomorrow, 08:30
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
2,811
#65
What do you mean by the succession being broken? Can you point out to me specifically when this was?
I read several wiki pages on early, medieval and late popes. A pope must choose who his successor is to keep the line open but several popes died without choosing the next pope and so voting is done by church leadership. Imagine a lineage where biologically the next person is always related to the founding ancestor. Descendency is not a voting matter. Peter needed to choose his successor and so on and so on. By voting this breaks the line of apostolic decent. Their needs to be a consistent line of pope approving the next pope otherwise it is a broken chain.
I'm unaware of what you're talking about regarding pope's choosing the next pope. I thought that it was generally the church leadership that chooses the pope? (I admit I am quite unknowledgeable in these matters)
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Local time
Today, 11:30
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,138
#66
It is depressing to think people prefer to endlessly argue about religion and nobody has any comment at all about cybernetic socialism.
:clap:

Believe it or not, glancing through the posts, I was thinking about a future where technology automates labor and creates a kind of socialism where people can pursue their goals, rather than being a slave to the labors of capitalism. Not sure if that's what you meant though. But I'd really like that. Money is annoying, even more now that I've managed to acquire a large amount of it. People see those with money as having more value and a lot more opportunities to acquire money pop up (least that's what's been happening with me). It's a bit depressing knowing that those with money have the monetary influence to keep those with little money from getting more. I wouldn't mind eliminating the human race and replacing it with some kind of AI or something either...
 

Lagomorph

Philosorabbit
Local time
Today, 17:30
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
552
Location
Down the hole with Alice
#67
@Reluctantly I was going to respond by basically explaining how such automation would create a dystopian future by removing any semblance of purpose from the populace, and then I read your last sentence.

Hey Hitler. How you been? :D
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Local time
Today, 11:30
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,138
#68
@Reluctantly I was going to respond by basically explaining how such automation would create a dystopian future by removing any semblance of purpose from the populace, and then I read your last sentence.
So, question for you

If you had a billion US dollars, do you think your life would have less potential for purpose? You wouldn't have to constantly chase after a buck, which frees up a lot of time to get involved in whatever it is that you find stimulating.

Of course, maybe the majority of the population doesn't have the creativity or intelligence to find things to enthrall their time. I know that Native Americans on reservations, for example, have a lot of problems with drugs and alcohol, and part of that might be from the government subsidies they are given. And rich people often get heavily into drugs and alcohol. But...that's kind of pathetic, isn't it? That's like saying that most people need to be slaves to a job or work in order to have meaning or purpose...in that case, they really should be eliminated.

Hey Hitler. How you been? :D
Good. I've evolved from being racist and hating a few to hating everyone equally. PC age and all.
 

Lagomorph

Philosorabbit
Local time
Today, 17:30
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
552
Location
Down the hole with Alice
#69
@Reluctantly I was going to respond by basically explaining how such automation would create a dystopian future by removing any semblance of purpose from the populace, and then I read your last sentence.
So, question for you

If you had a billion US dollars, do you think your life would have less potential for purpose? You wouldn't have to constantly chase after a buck, which frees up a lot of time to get involved in whatever it is that you find stimulating.

Of course, maybe the majority of the population doesn't have the creativity or intelligence to find things to enthrall their time. I know that Native Americans on reservations, for example, have a lot of problems with drugs and alcohol, and part of that might be from the government subsidies they are given. And rich people often get heavily into drugs and alcohol. But...that's kind of pathetic, isn't it? That's like saying that most people need to be slaves to a job or work in order to have meaning or purpose...in that case, they really should be eliminated.

Hey Hitler. How you been? :D
Good. I've evolved from being racist and hating a few to hating everyone equally. PC age and all.
Shit, I didn't see this in my notifications. Sorry.

Just having the money wouldn't change much, but using it to the extent that it restricts agency would be problematic. Purpose is discovered, not doled out or something, and it's discovered experientially. One's intrinsic potential doesn't change, but limiting experience reduces the chances that one's potential will ever be completely fulfilled.

Utopia is akin to hell for me. What opportunity is there to appreciate one's own progress and development? What sense of identity is there? What meaning is there without something negative to contrast one's experience?
 
Local time
Today, 23:30
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
45
#70
It has been so from the outset of the industrial revolution, thousands of relief organizations sprang into existence to relieve the general population from the many ailments of day to day capitalism.
Nowadays this number has continued to grow to a dizzying degree.
Which is only logical, since the root of the manyfold problems that are simply results of this underlying cause is, more often than not, completely ignored.
Charity on a personal and institutional level is good, but it can never be good enough, because it does not address the systemic cause of the problems.
Which in turn means that the results of this condition continue to be reproduced, thus then again resulting in a need for relief. A never ending cycle.
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Local time
Today, 10:30
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,849
#71
Which is only logical, since the root of the manyfold problems that are simply results of this underlying cause is, more often than not, completely ignored.
Charity on a personal and institutional level is good, but it can never be good enough, because it does not address the systemic cause of the problems.
What is the underlying cause?

Personally I think good governance is a lot like good management and I think a good manager exists to facilitate productivity. As I see it the existence of worker's unions is a failure of governance, managing the relationship between employees and employers falls under the purview of managing a country, worker's unions exist when governments fail to undertake that responsibility. I have the same opinion about private insurance, private healthcare, private education (not that a government should control all aspects of education), even services like telecommunications, everything that affects the ability of a nation's populace to be productive should be a part of that nation's governance strategy.

Ideally a government should provide as many services as possible as competently as possible, not just to ensure the people have access to everything they need but to also lessen the cognitive load of everyday living, which I think would facilitate even greater productivity.

I know this sounds a lot like communism and you're probably getting mental images of forced labour in rice fields but actually I'm thinking about the fact that we're heading towards a post-scarcity fully-automated economy. We're already in a sort of Robotic Renaissance, we're living in a time when more or less anyone can invent something or create something, run a Kickstarter campaign and potentially be the next Elon Musk a few months later.
 
Local time
Today, 23:30
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
45
#72
What is the underlying cause?
Capitalism.
And i think we agree at large.

What i don't see, is the the fully-automated post-scarcity economy.
This was the projected promise of communism in the past as well, that the machines that are *currently* employed to enslave the working masses could as well be employed to liberate them if the change from a capitalist mode of production to a communist *slash* socialist one could be made.
But when you look around these days, there is not even one country in the world left today to attempt to make that change happen.
Maybe the next BIG global economic crisis (not too far around the corner) can generate a momentum to open up a few opportunities, here and there.
From these instances onwards, perhaps a qualitative leap can be made to benefit mankind in a more general sense.
 
Local time
Today, 22:30
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
27
Location
On a Tangent
#73
What is the underlying cause?
Capitalism.
And i think we agree at large.
Why is capitalism the cause and not a symptom?

Is capitalism an arbitrary construct, imposed on the world at the whim of a few people?
No, it's a deceivingly complex system that's evolved/emerged over centuries.
Capitalism could be better described as the symptom of the wants and needs of 7 billion people.
It's not perfect, but the only way to replace it is to either provide instant gratification to everyone involved, or otherwise find a perfect method of countering peoples selfishness.
 

Serac

A menacing post slithers
Local time
Today, 22:30
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
1,506
Location
Stockholm
#74
I like socialism.

I don't want to have to contribute towards a gofundme for someone that needs surgery, I want universal healthcare to come out of my taxes.

I don't want to give charity to homeless people on the street, I want there to be social security and homeless shelters and I want that to come out of my taxes.

When I pay for insurance I don't want it to be priced based upon my income level and demographic, I think if insurance is cheapest for the people who need it least and most expensive for the people who need it most then we're missing the whole fucking point, indeed why is private insurance a thing, why isn't insurance a public service?

I don't want public funding going to private hospitals and private schools, if they're not serving everybody they shouldn't be payed for by everybody.

Speaking of services I'm sick of seeing public services getting privatized, it's not more efficient, companies buy the rights for these services so they can make a profit off them, it's called profiteering, it's why the cost goes up and the quality goes down, I also think telecommunications and internet should be public services, not just as a matter of cost but also national security.

Socialism isn't a dirty word.
Where the fuck are you gonna get money for all this? Do bureaucrats shit money?
 

Serac

A menacing post slithers
Local time
Today, 22:30
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
1,506
Location
Stockholm
#77
In general, in order to reduce prices while increasing quality, you need competition. If the strategy is to give one's money to the state and let bureaucrats run the whole show without competition, you will get shit quality and highly inefficient use of your money.

When talking about insurance, obviously if you have a high risk of experiencing an accident, your insurance premium has to be higher. Otherwise the insurer will pay out insurance claims all over the place while not getting enough money back, i.e. someone will have to put money into the system in order to pay for everyone's insurance. Who is that gonna be?
 

Serac

A menacing post slithers
Local time
Today, 22:30
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
1,506
Location
Stockholm
#79
In general, in order to reduce prices while increasing quality, you need competition.
So you support the government regulating cartels and monopolies?
I'm not too well studied on the topic of monopolies in particular. But I definitely don't think the marketplace should be an anarchy – there should obviously be laws to ensure that the game is fair.
 
Local time
Today, 23:30
Joined
Oct 7, 2018
Messages
115
#80
i agree giving charity is whack sauce yo, especially now that they want my card details.
when the fuck did that become a thing?

as for socialism, eh, the problem with it is that it's too nice.
every system needs some pushback to keep the people motivated...or else they come up with their own regressive shit.
 
Top Bottom