gini in a bottle

Derek Guy always being true in his fashion

"Research shows that society, and men themselves, are really hard on men who aren't economically viable."

Oh wow that's crazy, I wonder if anyone has thought about critiquing our socio-economic system and maybe have some ideas for how to change it?

To be clear, I don't advocate for this solution specifically. I'm just saying there are thousands of possibilities other than capitalism or state-control of production.

Humanity has tried barely any of the possibilities since the start of the industrial era.

The goods belong to individuals or worker co-ops who put in the work to make them. In a system where everyone has equal access to means of production, education and life necessities.

Not in market socialism, at least according to the definition I'm following. The whole idea is that land and means of production are publicly owned. That should include means of production in another country.

Yeah we're going in circles now. I addressed that by saying we should do what every single democracy I know of has done - have some people in place who are empowered to make certain decisions in emergencies.

Then you said we can't do what every democracy does, because of Rome.

As I said, I don't think I share this concept of "purity" as you do. So no, I don't want this "purity" because the concept of purity doesn't even register for me.

I think we're going in circles now. I feel like I already addressed this.

Well I said that the person in power should be democratically elected and the idea seemed to really bother you and you spent a lot of time arguing against it. So that sounds like it's a dictator then?

That's why we should democratically decide on policies that would prevent anyone from overreaching in an emergency.

I don't think I have the same concept of "purity" as you. Is direct democracy what you would call "pure" democracy?

That's the crux of our disagreement. A perfectly benevolent, wise and knowledgeable dictator is indeed the most efficient. But I believe that's impossible and that it will almost definitely become a dictatorship that never reaches the final stage communism.

I agree with your first sentence.

But I also believe that's because media is controlled by a few instead of being democratically controlled. So the answer is more democracy, not more concentration of power.

There is no system in the world in which nobody decides what to do in an emergency. If your argument is that nobody should make decisions about what to do when there is an emergency, then you are arguing against democracy and dictatorship equally.

That happened because there wasn't enough democracy, not because there was too much. I don't believe that genocide would be avoided by giving Israel's leaders even more concentration of power.

In history and today, every single democratic country has someone or someones who makes a decision when there is an emergency. That is not unique to Rome.

Also, plenty of people learn history without coming to the conclusion that democracy is bad.

What does that have to do with anything? How does anything about Rome supposed to convince me to stop believing in democracy?

Yes, I know what it means.

There is no system where every possible outcome is predicted. That same criticism can be applied to anything.

I don't see your argument with Rome. Things went wrong when someone made a decision in an emergency in Rome, therefore all decisions should be made by a dictator instead of a democratically elected official? How does that reasoning fit together?

Policies are usually determined incrementally. When we discover that the policy doesn't cover some problem, then we adjust it so we're ready for next time.

As they say in the building industry "Every regulation is written in blood."

I just said it's important to decide policies for how to respond to emergencies and to have elected officials ready to make decisions if there is an unforeseen event not covered by policy.

Did that not tip you off that I would see a problem with a reactionary system?

Yes.

Yes, we do our best to put policies in place that account for emergency. That's not perfect, but it is better than playing roulette and hoping your dictator has perfect benevolence, wisdom, and knowledge.

As I said, a person or persons can be elected to make decisions in unforeseen circumstances.

Why are you specifying Rome, when every single country that has ever existed has some person or persons who decide what to do in case of emergency?

Which means there is a direction once it has been voted on, so that means direction can work just fine in a democracy.

Democracy can set policies for what to do in an emergency and can elect someone to make decisions on time-sensitive issues.

I do think time-sensitive issues would be a lot rarer without capitalists constantly chasing growth though.

A politician in a democracy has to answer to the people, so they aren't a different class. Anyone can become a politician in an ideal democracy, and the politician can be booted out if the people don't like what they are doing.

So no, they aren't a different class.

I think "free market" is a propaganda term designed to put a positive spin on systems that threaten a lot of people's freedom.

I'm not sure if that answers your question, but I'm not sure what you would like me to elaborate on.

All I can do is continue to disagree with the claim that democracy means there is no direction. If you are so convinced that democracy means chaos and no direction, then I don't really know how to go forward from there.

Sorry, just responding to you telling me that China and Cuba did some things better. I guess I'm not sure why you pointed out that China and Cuba did some things better than capitalist countries. I already agree with that.