you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Is this not how Capitalism operates? Do Capitalists not compete against each other for resources, and in the process innovate for the purpose of expedience? Do Capitalists not seek to put in the least effort possible for the most pay?

Yes, they do. Do you have a point? OK I'll make it clearer: in an organization, everybody screwing each other out of profits makes everything turn to crap very quickly. It's communism, where you have to wait 18 hours in line for a loaf of bread, only to be told at the end of the wait that there is none left. In capitalism, only the top management, say 1% of the "workforce" screw the workforce out of their labor-created value. Having 1% parasites is more viable than having 99% parasites.

The only alternative to a market economy — which naturally creates competition — is Socialism, which takes away the driving force to work and innovate, and thus: strips the Nation of any semblance of a functional economy. Have you not seen what happened in Venezuela?

You are confused. Every capitalist country is also socialist. There is no such thing as a purely capitalist system. You're thinking of communism maybe? Yes, communism is bad. It's the 99% parasites system.

Competition and self-interest is a good thing, because it drives our economy. Any system that eliminates competition, eliminates the economy.

I never wrote anything contrary to this very obvious truth.

Direct democracy cannot function, for the majority would trample upon the rights of the minority, and those in charge of society, no longer being elected representatives, would not run the government as effectively — instead we need to implement technocratic elements, so those regulating the economy actually know what they're doing.

Direct democracy has worked and does work, perfectly. Trampling the "rights" of minorities IS A GOOD THING. It ensures homogeneity of a society. A society that functions does so because the people obey ONE set of rules to get at ONE set of goals. If you have minorities with different goals or who "play" the game of society using different rules, that is a dysfunctional society. That is my most absolute condemnation of people like you. You destroy society because you feel entitled. When the laws are made BY the people and FOR the people, you think that's inefficient and wrong? No, it works perfectly. You seem to think that the only non-idiotic people work for governments? Well, that's completely wrong. Direct democracies discuss and find out the consequences of any possible action, which people then vote on. There is no agenda, but WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT.

This is only true, cause under direct democracy: the running of the government becomes impractical.

Completely false. Show your data. In a direct democracy, power is divided to the smallest possible division. You have neighborhoods making neighborhood rules, instead of a centralized government who is taking a bribe from a party with an agenda. The people make the rules they want to abide by. It's just the bribing that is impractical.

Capitalism and Socialism, being the two opposing factions of Materialism, have destroyed human society by directing the devotion of the People away from the Nation, and towards factions and material items. The only way to restore society is to restore the devotion of the People to the Nation, and to subvert the factions which have sought to destroy it.

No. You are again confusing socialism with communism. Socialism is a term that has been co-opted by a century-old psy op in order to make the uneducated equate the word socialism with what communism actually is. Doing so creates a huge blind spot in the minds of these uneducated sheeple, rendering them incapable of thinking the whole spectrum of socioeconomic thought. Socialism IS ALWAYS PRESENT with a capitalist system, unless you are in the Mad Max version of the world where each bandit gang kills, maims, and pillages whoever they choose.

Never thought I'd ever see a Nazi (or whatever the correct term may be) advocate for direct democracy, but here we are...

Hitler's idea was that the people have values and to direct and lead his nation according to their values and traditions. In a direct democracy, the same thing happens, except if for example some minorities are woven into the population to begin with, which is what we have now, they can form neighborhoods and set their own rules. It is not good or ideal for a society but it's a working compromise. In the end Fascism is the same as democracy without the bullshit, because a true fascist leader understands the heart and soul of his people and shapes the nation according to it. He is not a tyrant, he is an idol, a template, a pinnacle.

Could the rich not use disinformation and propaganda, in order to trick the people into voting against their interests, as they always have? The only difference would be that instead of voting for corrupt politicians, they'd be voting for corrupt laws.

So, the rich would go to each neighborhood and try to influence each and every local information medium? Color me doubtful, since there are for example a little bit over 3,000 counties in the USA. So say buying an official on the federal level costs 100k. Buying one official for each county (never mind neighborhoods) costs >300 million. To get ONE THING passed. And then there is the whole, "Wait, when did you get so rich?" trigger when each official lives in his own small community. Questions get asked and answers are found. What is said official to do when say just 200 angry people wait for him to leave his home to ask him pointed questions? Local officials don't have personal armies in a direct democracy. They are simply Joe Average.

The only way to fix corruption is to pass anti-corruption legislation.

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA Legislation? BIG CORPS OWN THE GOVERNMENT.

Every corporation has an army of lobbyists.

Every big corporation has some lobbyists. Multiply their "army" (whatever) by 3,000 since you now have to lobby at least 3,000 times as many officials. Good luck having fun.

Do you now what direct democracy is? You wouldn't have a mayor.

Sigh. It is obviously you who does not know. There are mayors in direct democracies.

Democratic-Republics can ban businesses too. I don't think that's the right solution, though; we should break them up into smaller companies, force them to give a certain amount of ownership to their workers, ban them from having stakes in adjacent industries, and adequately regulate them.

Keep dreaming, boy. What are you even talking about. These big businesses OWN THE GOVERNMENT. They regulate the government, not the other way around! That is the whole problem!! I'm starting to wonder why I even bothered answering in the first place.

The government doesn't have to be pseudo-anarchistic to be decentralized; a better option would be to return power to the states/provinces/etc.

It isn't pseudo-anarchy, it is the rule of the people by the people. It is ACTUAL democracy, not this sham we live under. "Returning the power" to the local level can only be achieved through a direct democracy. Otherwise the same crap happens: power hoards itself, centralization grows and we're back to square one.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

In capitalism, only the top management, say 1% of the "workforce" screw the workforce out of their labor-created value. Having 1% parasites is more viable than having 99% parasites.

That ain't true. Under Capitalism, everyone competes against each other over resources and jobs — and the same thing happens under Syndicalism. The only difference is that Capitalism gives control over businesses solely to owners and investors, while Syndicalism gives workers at least some power.

Capitalism redistributes wealth to those who already have wealth, while Syndicalism redistributes wealth based on how much labor, innovation, etc. you can put in. Investors, bankers, etc. are parasites who just manipulate money without contributing to society, while workers are the back-bone of our economy.

You are confused. Every capitalist country is also socialist. There is no such thing as a purely capitalist system.

When I say "Socialism" I'm referring to a mostly socialist system. In context, I'm referring to a command economy. I do realize most economies are mixed.

Trampling the "rights" of minorities IS A GOOD THING.

In retrospect, I should'a seen that coming. Obviously, I disagree (which is why I use SaidIt instead of Reddit). Ironically, you'd be the minority being oppressed by the neo-liberal majority (see: Reddit).

A society that functions does so because the people obey ONE set of rules to get at ONE set of goals. If you have minorities with different goals or who "play" the game of society using different rules, that is a dysfunctional society.

Having everyone obey the same set of rules is exactly what "minority rights" means; for example: everyone has the right to free speech, even Nazis — who are a tiny minority of the population.

That is my most absolute condemnation of people like you. You destroy society because you feel entitled.

Everyone's entitled to speech, press, assembly, religion, and guns. You only think that destroys society, because you get offended when people say things you disagree with and want to censor them (just like Communsits).

You seem to think that the only non-idiotic people work for governments?

No?... Just look at the US government, it's a mess of corruption and incompetence — because we're too weak, not too strong.

Completely false. Show your data.

There is no proof of direct democracy even existing at a large scale, let alone proof it doesn't work. Proof has to be positive, not negative; you can't say there's a flying spaghetti monster just because I can't prove it doesn't exist. If you provided evidence of direct democracy working: then I could try to criticize it.

In a direct democracy, power is divided to the smallest possible division. You have neighborhoods making neighborhood rules, instead of a centralized government who is taking a bribe from a party with an agenda.

You do realize that democratic-republics can be decentralized, right? Direct democracy can also be centralized, if everyone in the country voted for national policies.

No. You are again confusing socialism with communism. Socialism is a term that has been co-opted by a century-old psy op in order to make the uneducated equate the word socialism with what communism actually is.

Communism is a type of Socialism, in which all property is commonly owned, usually by the state. Socialism is just significant government intervention in the economy — which is why most economies are mixed.

In context, I'm referring to the Socialist faction, which wants more government intervention, and the Capitalist faction, which wants less intervention.

So, the rich would go to each neighborhood and try to influence each and every local information medium?

Under Capitalism, every information medium is centralized into the hands of a small elite, who use them to push agendas and disinformation.

In the end Fascism is the same as democracy without the bullshit, because a true fascist leader understands the heart and soul of his people and shapes the nation according to it. He is not a tyrant, he is an idol, a template, a pinnacle.

You do realize that the whole point of direct democracy is not having leaders, right? a "true fascist leader" would be a representative, elected or not.

Buying one official for each county (never mind neighborhoods) costs >300 million.

You do realize lobbyists spend millions of dollars, right? They spent $2.5B just in 2010. By the way, I have no clue where your numbers are coming from.

And then there is the whole, "Wait, when did you get so rich?" trigger when each official lives in his own small community.

People already know politicians are corrupt, they just can't do no'n about it (or so they think), since the first-past-the-post voting system protects establishment politicians. The solution is to switch to a different voting method and pass election finance laws.

Also, direct democracy wouldn't have these officials.

Legislation? BIG CORPS OWN THE GOVERNMENT.

It should be obvious that we'd have to elect anti-corruption candidates first.

since you now have to lobby at least 3,000 times as many officials.

Again, direct democracy doesn't have officials.

There are mayors in direct democracies.

...

I'm starting to wonder why I even bothered answering in the first place.

You can quit responding, if you want; I honestly don't mind.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That you chose to gloss over this

A society that functions does so because the people obey ONE set of rules to get at ONE set of goals. If you have minorities with different goals or who "play" the game of society using different rules, that is a dysfunctional society. That is my most absolute condemnation of people like you. You destroy society because you feel entitled. When the laws are made BY the people and FOR the people, things just plain WORK.

Says everything we need to know.