|
Lord of the Llamas posted:I think you've missed the fundamental point I was trying to make. Given that power structures will always exist; a state is the only structure within which you can even hope to enforce fairness and accountability. Otherwise you're left with bullying? Nepotism? Cronyism? It's not easy but it seems like the only viable option to create any sort of robust fair society. TomViolence posted:The state as vehicle for fairness and accountability: our bulwark against bullying, nepotism and cronyism. And so the inevitable 'What is a state anyway?' (A miserable pile of secrets, have at you!) begins. I'd suggest moving beyond the word 'state' and being more descriptive in terms of means and goals before everyone talks past each other.
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
I like how someone can live through the last 6 months and thing 'you know what would be great? A society structured entirely around democratic decision making. Also we will get rid of concepts like money that give people any chance to weigh comparative economic decisions.'
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I like how someone can live through the last 6 months and thing 'you know what would be great? A society structured entirely around democratic decision making. Also we will get rid of concepts like money that give people any chance to weigh comparative economic decisions.' Nice strawman you've erected there. That said, the argument's as old as time itself and probably utterly insoluble. Best to just agree to disagree and leave it at that. It's a  free country after all, you're all entitled to your opinion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:The state as vehicle for fairness and accountability: our bulwark against bullying, nepotism and cronyism. You're the guy who thinks that arbitrary and harmful power structures aren't due to self organisation so idk what to say to you really? The state is an essential concept to abstract the social contract away from brittle mob rule.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Nice strawman you've erected there. If you can come back with an argument that persuades more people than a dozen crackheads in a squat in East London I'd love to hear it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:If you can come back with an argument that persuades more people than a dozen crackheads in a squat in East London I'd love to hear it. Democracy is good when you include the proviso that the participants have the capacity to make informed self-interested decisions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Democracy is good when you include the proviso that the participants have the capacity to make informed self-interested decisions. If that were true then free markets would work well. Democracy works on a weaker assumption that people just need to know when to get really pissed off. The problem is, as we've seen, is that pissed off people don't seem to make great decisions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
People would probably be better at making democratic decisions if they were constantly making them at work as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:If that were true then free markets would work well. Democracy works on a weaker assumption that people just need to know when to get really pissed off. The problem is, as we've seen, is that pissed off people don't seem to make great decisions. Not really, markets give greater weight to some people than others, and don't at all enforce informedness, the point of democracy is that you can't stop people acting in their own interest, so it is a good idea to ensure that everyone gets a chance to inject their own interest into the consensus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Not really, markets give greater weight to some people than others, and don't at all enforce informedness, the point of democracy is that you can't stop people acting in their own interest, so it is a good idea to ensure that everyone gets a chance to inject their own interest into the consensus. Asymmetric information is just as much a problem in democracy as free market dynamics? The difference is that free markets assume a ton of micro-decisions amount to wisdom but at least focal points like elections in democracy assume there's some kind of mass debate and decision making process can happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:Asymmetric information is just as much a problem in democracy as free market dynamics? The difference is that free markets assume a ton of micro-decisions amount to wisdom but at least focal points like elections in democracy assume there's some kind of mass debate and decision making process can happen. Yes it is an issue with most implementations of democracy. The question was essentially "how could a non-hierarchical society based around collective decision making be a good thing" to which my response is that many of the flaws of democracy are not inherent to the form, they are engineered.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:If you can come back with an argument that persuades more people than a dozen crackheads in a squat in East London I'd love to hear it. Okay well, I'll try and that since it's a slow day and I've already inadvertently derailed the thread. So I'll reply to this snide little wordburger at least: Alchenar posted:I like how someone can live through the last 6 months and thing 'you know what would be great? A society structured entirely around democratic decision making. We already do live in such a society and it's not working too great as you point out. The solution isn't to throw the baby out with the bathwater and utterly reject democratic decision-making. Brexit came about thanks largely to the disproportionate power wielded by the right wing press in this country, not because involving people in the decisions that effect their lives is somehow inherently bad. Maybe I'm arguing this in the wrong thread mind you, as you lot do seem awfully fond of the idea of rounding up the 50% or so folk you disagree with and shoving them in gulags and I won't deny you do need authoritarian state power to accomplish that. quote:Also we will get rid of concepts like money that give people any chance to weigh comparative economic decisions.' Where in the hell did I even propose this? Do you think trade is impossible without capitalism and state power enforcing it? People have collectively organised trade on and off for millenia without anything resembling a modern corporation or state facilitating the exchange. In the modern world wealth is abstract and ephemeral anyway however it's measured, even our dwindlingly worthless poond isn't what it was yesterday. Do you think brexiteers feel poorer today than when they voted? Their pay packets are probably the same exact number. Unless they're following the currency market I doubt they're comparatively weighing anything. I think you're vastly overestimating my debating skills if you think I can convince even half a dozen crackheads, for the record.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes it is an issue with most implementations of democracy. The question was essentially "how could a non-hierarchical society based around collective decision making be a good thing" to which my response is that many of the flaws of democracy are not inherent to the form, they are engineered. "most implementations" ? Do you have an implementation of democracy that doesn't require people to know things?? Hierarchy is as much an emergent property of systems as it is a designed one. My argument is that hierarchy must be managed by abstracting the big ticket moral and ethical decisions away from short term power. The only vehicle I'm aware of that makes that possible is that of states with silly things like laws and processes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
New thread is up, hope everyone had a good Halloween! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 01:02
|
|
