No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
I agree broadly with much of your assessment of history and many of the problems that bely current western society. The rich might be exploiting capitalism to their benefit but a capitalist system with proper regulation will always be better (in terms of Quality of life and freedom) for larger groups of people Than a planned economy.
Possibly but I can't think of a time that's been attempted, let alone successfully implemented. Capitalism always (it seems to me) ends up morphing into a system to protect wealth and the wealthy. They would never, ever allow 'proper regulation' (by which I assume you mean regulation to protect workers as much as the rich) to happen.
Capitalism isn't a national thing - its global - there's always going to be places where what one country forbids another country allows. All a rich person or company has to do is transfer their base of operations there to circumnavigate most laws and pay lip service to the laws of the countries they operate in. Look at Amazon or Starbucks.
Planned economies were the means to the end not the end. Basing it around authoritarian, suppressive, dictatorial government is what made it the end. That said, apart from freedom of speech issues. Capitalism struggles in most aspects to truly be better, even at its best. Because capitalism ends up authoritarian and suppressive as well. Those with all the wealthy and resources don't tolerate those who are against their theft.
We should be moving past both.
Okay, but what does a system look like that moves past both? How do you ensure people get resources if you don't want capitalism or a planned economy?
By implementing the thing Marxist-leninists were loathe to implement despite giving a lot of lip service. Actual communism. Not the Engles lenin variety. But the kind Marx spoke on. The thing to remember is that the Soviet Communist party was as communist as the national socialist party of Germany was socialist. Which is to say neither of them were.
This of course all starts with actual large scale engagement. We absolutely need to change the voting system etc as a start. For all the flaws and problems of the founding fathers, the fact that they saw us needing to largely rewrite the Constitution every few decades, let alone every few hundred years was not one of their flaws.
Then we need to uncap the House of Representatives. That's a century overdue. Followed by abolishing the electoral college. Then reforming the house, Senate, judiciary and even the concept of the presidency. Basically take as many steps as necessary to make things as democratic/granular as possible. Dilute power.
One of the other important things we could do is abolishing the concept of private property. Private property is little more than theft. Allowing the wealthy to horde resources to the detriment of everyone else. If you own a home, you should be living in it. It shouldn't be some sort of an investment that you never spend time in. Used for speculation on markets etc. Replace private property with something much more sane like the more limited concept of personal property. As in property, a person would actually use themselves. Tying legal fines and fees to a person's income and wealth along with impartial enforcement is another good start.
Your suggestion would only usher in a different kind of tyranny.
Really? What kind of tyranny would increasing democracy while reducing concentration of power cause? Lol I'd really like to know.
There's a reason the people who wrote the Constitution decided upon federalism as our form of government. It protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This concept is especially important as the urban majority seeks to assert its ignorant tyranny on the rural minority these days.
The United States isn't a single government like most non-federal nations. There is plenty of democracy in our local and state governments, and we have our bicameral Congress which accounts for both the equality of the states, no matter their populations, as well as the inequality of the states, taking into account their populations. Remove that equality and you will be unable to get enough states to ratify your new constitution.
They did no such thing. Literally that's propaganda. All they did was enshrine the tyranny of white landed male Gentry. Which don't get me wrong. Was progressive at the time. Considering no males outside of royalty typically had much power. But don't push this fantasy that it was about protection from some sort of majority. It was all about enshrining the tyranny of a specific minority.
And like clockwork, the entire history of the United States has been pushing back against the tyranny of that minority. Minority. Women's suffrage came at pushing back against that minority the rights of non-whites to vote came from pushing back against those groups as well. The rights of gays to marry came from pushing back at those groups as well.
If the majority is something to be feared. And the tyranny of the majority is an actual thing that we have evidence is bad. Then I am sure you could provide examples of this. No examples exist, but surely you must be able to provide some. Where this evil majority inflicted their tyranny upon people.
Which is doubly absurd when we're talking about diluting power not concentrating power with anyone or any one group. So that no minority or majority has outsized power over any other group to inflict their will. It's like you've never really given this. Any critical or deep thought.
You gotta return to your grade-school history textbooks, my friend. You can even read what the Framers wrote as they debated, at length, this very topic. It was the major sticking point between the populous states and the less populous states, and the bicameral legislature was the compromise.
Either way, I'm not concerned. You'll never get enough states to give up their representation so it'll never happen.
Grade school history books are literal hero worshiping whitewashed propaganda. And if that's what you're running on. You've been willingly duped hard.
For their day, the founders were definitely more democratic and forward thinking than many of their contemporaries. But they literally only gave white landowning males a voice in the government. Go look it up. Read on it. Their voice was the only voice that mattered. The voice of women. Didn't matter. The voice of non-landowning males white or otherwise didn't matter. We fought wars over this and had protests for the better part of the last several hundred years to get the progress we've got. It wasn't given to us by the founders LOL.
I'm not saying you're wrong about how originally only white male landowners were able to vote. But... That's completely irrelevant to the issue of apportioning representation. The bicameral legislature provides fair representation to every state, whether it's big or small. I don't see how that could be anything but beneficial to everyone, whether they be a white male landowner in California or a black female renter in Rhode Island.
Anyway, you aren't going to convince me that your folly is the best course for this nation. I'm not too concerned because, like I said, you'll never get enough states to go along with such a horrible plan to replace the Constitution.
Good day.
It never has. Not even before house was capped. Definitely never after it was. The electoral college and the Senate were literally concession to racist bigots. To imbalance the system in their favor. Literally, this is highschool, basic college level intro history.
It's hard to know whether someone is truly this ignorant or if this is a performative novelty account. I'm going with the latter. But just how easily possible it is for such a lack of information to exist. Still makes it frightening. There really are a ton of people out there operating on similar information deficits.
I'm not sure I'd trust non historians about history.
That's fine. As long as you don't trust the official histories either..
I trust them more than "alt" historians who use flimsy evidence.
No one should trust flimsy evidence. And yet many people trust the official histories with flimsy evidence. While ignoring or never being exposed to the true history. US history is full of such well-known falsifications.
Well you took the cowards way out. I was hoping you'd actually try to contend with any of the many points they made as it would be an interesting conversation but you had to lean on ad homs in the end.
It'd need some pretty strong regulation, but it could work out very well