Zima

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

at least the way a socialist teacher taught me in primary school (and i don't completely agree with him but it's a good charactherization) you have desirable values of freedom and equality and they are in conflict. again I don't necesarrily agree with that and it boils down to the fact that when equality is implemented is always by averaging down everyone which is at the expense of freedom. anyways so supposedly you have capitalism as a system that places freedom above equality and communism as a system that places equality above freedom. so it's not really about good and bad but a conflict of virtues.

it's completely besides the point but i do rank freedom slightly above equality. in reality i would like to ensure some minimum level of support for everyone , i think that should be a pretty low level of support. just the bare minimun e.g. ensured education and equal chance at success at life, and health care depending on the actual amount of resources that can be allocated to it, nothing unrealistic but just the minimum to live without suffering, including other stuff like food and clothing and shelther as well. and then to have the freedom so that if anyone wants more than the minimum they should work for it. I'm sure that the people that wanted to work would be able to produce enough value to provide that minimum life support for everyone. so about 80% freedom and 20% equality.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

I don’t think it’s an inevitable result. As we get better at handling complex systems we might have a chance at a more efficient planned economy (that would still have issues but so does capitalism) we are not there yet. I do think that capitalism is the best system we can currently use. It doesn’t mean it’s not flawed

I don’t think that my opinion is about how relevant I think the economic calculation problem is or worker productivity. It’s the famines that follow its implementation that i find “relevant”.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yes. Even a communal style of life works at small scales. But not at civilization scale. This is accepted and studied. And in particular the studies focus on the effects of the size of the group. As the groups grow larger the free riders appear. But I think what’s worse is that even if they didn’t have that problem they would still face the economic calculation problem and end up producing the wrong things instead.

edit: I should add that I think i would personally love to live in some small community in that sort of shared community setting even though I'm "white collar high earner".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

looks like you missed the point.

I don't think anyone expects it to be implemented without some regulations and protections to address malicious actors

Neither did I, but it already happened.

Don't project your assumptions on to me, thanks.

project? LOL, who said this?

So instead of punishing the terrible people then someone who wants to end their suffering for good reasons should be prohibited?

I guess I should not take you seriously if you can't even own your words. simpletons are usually this way. its either the best or the worst and they can't even remember what they say.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (3 children)

No. Instead of thinking it won’t be miss-used and push the idea that there are no other considerations we need to take those issues into account. It’s not a handful of terrible people. The world is more complex than being 100% for/against something as you seem to imply.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (5 children)

I used to think that way until i learned that in uk some social workers suggest it as a legitimate solution for people that complain about the level of care they are receiveing. They really do say to patients that if they are not getting enough help they have that option.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

They have explained in the past that some times terrorist pose as hostages to get closer to idf and then detonate the explosives they had under their clothes.

They even killed hostages in past rescue operations like in 1976 when they rescued people from a plane hijack in uganda.

They anticipate that the terrorists will pose as victims so they perceive them as a potential threat.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Iirc the deal they had with israel was that they would not kill hamas leaders in qatar. I imagine that now they have reasons to be afraid.

view more: next ›