Income Inequality and Decadence

[Pope Joan]

"Work is the curse of the drinking class"-

Oscar Wilde

[Cedoria]

The state will always serve the interests of a conglomerate of the wealthy and powerful. It's hardly new. The only question is, what do you do about it?

[Pandeeria]

The state will always serve the interests of a conglomerate of the wealthy and powerful. It's hardly new. The only question is, what do you do about it?

We should vote. Because obviously the system that is dominated by said conglomerate will allow it's self to be voted out of existence.

[Mattopilos]

The state will always serve the interests of a conglomerate of the wealthy and powerful. It's hardly new. The only question is, what do you do about it?

We should vote. Because obviously the system that is dominated by said conglomerate will allow it's self to be voted out of existence.

Fight for direct democracy - for a TRUE voice of the people, not some representative that is only in it for the power over decisions.

[Australian rePublic]

All rich people live happy lives? Is that some kind of joke?

[Mattopilos]

All rich people live happy lives? Is that some kind of joke?

They have the possibility to, that's for sure.

[Nochov]

We should vote. Because obviously the system that is dominated by said conglomerate will allow it's self to be voted out of existence.

Fight for direct democracy - for a TRUE voice of the people, not some representative that is only in it for the power over decisions.

Except whenever direct democracy is tried, it just results in nothing ever changing because the people who oppose change care enough to go out and raise their hand, while the ones who support it can't be bothered. Just look at the Swiss statistics on how many motions are carried and how many fall.
A government needs to get things done, and the force getting those things done needs to be a powerful and charismatic technocrat with the support of the military and an oligarchy of fellow technocrats. Democracy is a social experiment inevitably doomed to fall. Better it be to an oligarchy than to an autocracy, because the oligarchy at least can have internal methods of control, where the autocracy only has chaotic revolutions and coups to rely on.

[Mattopilos]

Fight for direct democracy - for a TRUE voice of the people, not some representative that is only in it for the power over decisions.

Except whenever direct democracy is tried, it just results in nothing ever changing because the people who oppose change care enough to go out and raise their hand, while the ones who support it can't be bothered. Just look at the Swiss statistics on how many motions are carried and how many fall.
A government needs to get things done, and the force getting those things done needs to be a powerful and charismatic technocrat with the support of the military and an oligarchy of fellow technocrats. Democracy is a social experiment inevitably doomed to fall. Better it be to an oligarchy than to an autocracy, because the oligarchy at least can have internal methods of control, where the autocracy only has chaotic revolutions and coups to rely on.

... I hope this is a joke. Really, you want an authoritarian society where the government makes all the choices? Yeah, can't see that going wrong. Nope. Not at all. Not ever.
Can I ask how motions not passing is a measure of a nation's progress? Also, this is assuming that a society is not apathetic, which doesn't really happen in any authoritarian society - they don't get a real big say unless they are the fringe, so why bother?
"Democracy is a social experiment inevitably doomed to fall" Yeah, almost it has been failing and dying out for 2000 or so years s/

[Minzerland II]

All rich people live happy lives? Is that some kind of joke?

They have the possibility to, that's for sure.

Money can't buy everything.

[Mattopilos]

They have the possibility to, that's for sure.

Money can't buy everything.

Please point out where I said that. I am saying that they have to ability to go after their desires and satisfy their greed more than many (if not all) socioeconomically disadvantaged person.

[Nochov]

Except whenever direct democracy is tried, it just results in nothing ever changing because the people who oppose change care enough to go out and raise their hand, while the ones who support it can't be bothered. Just look at the Swiss statistics on how many motions are carried and how many fall.
A government needs to get things done, and the force getting those things done needs to be a powerful and charismatic technocrat with the support of the military and an oligarchy of fellow technocrats. Democracy is a social experiment inevitably doomed to fall. Better it be to an oligarchy than to an autocracy, because the oligarchy at least can have internal methods of control, where the autocracy only has chaotic revolutions and coups to rely on.

... I hope this is a joke. Really, you want an authoritarian society where the government makes all the choices? Yeah, can't see that going wrong. Nope. Not at all. Not ever.
Can I ask how motions not passing is a measure of a nation's progress? Also, this is assuming that a society is not apathetic, which doesn't really happen in any authoritarian society - they don't get a real big say unless they are the fringe, so why bother?
"Democracy is a social experiment inevitably doomed to fall" Yeah, almost it has been failing and dying out for 2000 or so years s/

I absolutely want that. If you want to influence society, nothing's stopping you from signing up for military service, advancing in the ranks to the point where you're allowed a civilian leadership position, and then advancing in those ranks to a spot on the technocratic council.
A nation that doesn't change is a nation that goes into a decline. Look at the ancient Greeks and Romans, they provide great examples of periods of stagnancy and decline, and periods of change and prosperity. And general society is most definitely apathetic, just look at the small number of people politically engaged.
Every historic democracy has died with the exception of the parliament of the Isle of Mann, which has extenuating circumstances, being a fairly small and isolated community. There's no reason to believe that this trend will be broken just because a few of our current democracies have been around for a few hundred years. External and/or internal forces exert pressure, and democracies crumble.

[Mattopilos]

... I hope this is a joke. Really, you want an authoritarian society where the government makes all the choices? Yeah, can't see that going wrong. Nope. Not at all. Not ever.
Can I ask how motions not passing is a measure of a nation's progress? Also, this is assuming that a society is not apathetic, which doesn't really happen in any authoritarian society - they don't get a real big say unless they are the fringe, so why bother?
"Democracy is a social experiment inevitably doomed to fall" Yeah, almost it has been failing and dying out for 2000 or so years s/

I absolutely want that. If you want to influence society, nothing's stopping you from signing up for military service, advancing in the ranks to the point where you're allowed a civilian leadership position, and then advancing in those ranks to a spot on the technocratic council.
A nation that doesn't change is a nation that goes into a decline. Look at the ancient Greeks and Romans, they provide great examples of periods of stagnancy and decline, and periods of change and prosperity. And general society is most definitely apathetic, just look at the small number of people politically engaged.
Every historic democracy has died with the exception of the parliament of the Isle of Mann, which has extenuating circumstances, being a fairly small and isolated community. There's no reason to believe that this trend will be broken just because a few of our current democracies have been around for a few hundred years. External and/or internal forces exert pressure, and democracies crumble.

I think you are ignoring all the authoritarian nations that have crumbled as well, due to unrest - no freedom usually pisses people off.
Your heaven is my hell. That, and a democracy lasting that long usually shows it, in fact, works. Vrery few truly authoritarian societies have lasted even close to what democracies have lasted. Your assertions are baseless.
Yeah, they are apathetic because they reallise the illusion of choice is not in fact having a choice? Maybe they feel their voice won't be heard anyway? There are many reasons people don't care for politics, and much of it has to do with the system of politics they are in - representative democracy can very much create apathy if they don't agree with any of the candidates, for example. They cannot have THEIR choice TRULY represented, so they think 'why bother?'.

[Saiwania]

In the US and in many other countries, there certainly is an abhorrently high amount of income inequality, not helped by supply side economics nor neo-liberal policies pushed by the rich for the benefit of themselves or for big business. The world isn't quite so black and white however, plenty of rich people have worked hard for their money before becoming truly successful or came up with a viable business plan as a successful entrepreneur and people voluntarily paid them for goods/services they managed to bring to people.

There just isn't enough money to solve all of the world's problems.

[Community Values]

They created money for the prostitutes to live better lives. They payed for the champagne, which goes to businesses that make champagne, and considering how much they bought, I could see that business expanding.

Yeah, if they spent a bit more, I could see it creating jobs. Nevertheless, it sure helped the businesses they went to.

They shouldn't require wealthy people to go in there in order to hold up their businesses. The prostitutes would live better lives if there weren't so many fucking laws that limit what they can do.

I'm not saying that rich people hold up their business (sometimes they do though), I'm saying rich people may circulate more wealth in a day than a poor person does in a month. I might even go so far as to say decadence helps the economy, as consumerism is a good way to circulate wealth.

[Ohioan Territory]

What are you on about? There are righteous people at the top of the chain, and at the bottom. Go to Wikipedia and read up on Robert Herjavec's early life, and tell me, does he not deserve the wealth he has now?

[The Islands of Versilia]

Some very wealthy individuals do not deserve as much as they have, and do live lives that are not very useful to society.

And then there are those who are very wealthy, but are actually very useful.

Not every beggar is lazy, or oppressed. Same as how not every rich person is oppressive, or hard working, or decadent.

Painting an entire group of people in the same light as a few is rather silly, to be honest. But I see your point.

[The New Sea Territory]

The state will always serve the interests of a conglomerate of the wealthy and powerful. It's hardly new. The only question is, what do you do about it?

We should overthrow the state. To build to that, we should engage in social insertion, direct action, insurrection and syndicalism.

[The New Sea Territory]

All rich people live happy lives? Is that some kind of joke?

Anyone can have an existential crisis and fall into depression. This has no bearing on their ownership of the means of production, and the working class's expropriation of them.

[Yugosatan]

I don't think you object to decadence. You just object to rich people being rich. Had we less income inequality, I doubt you'd mind people exercising their hedonia however they wish.

[The New Sea Territory]

A government needs to get things done, and the force getting those things done needs to be a powerful and charismatic technocrat with the support of the military and an oligarchy of fellow technocrats.

A lack of distribution of power like that only makes it easier to bring the whole system toppling down.

[Pandeeria]

Fight for direct democracy - for a TRUE voice of the people, not some representative that is only in it for the power over decisions.

Except whenever direct democracy is tried, it just results in nothing ever changing because the people who oppose change care enough to go out and raise their hand, while the ones who support it can't be bothered. Just look at the Swiss statistics on how many motions are carried and how many fall.
A government needs to get things done, and the force getting those things done needs to be a powerful and charismatic technocrat with the support of the military and an oligarchy of fellow technocrats. Democracy is a social experiment inevitably doomed to fall. Better it be to an oligarchy than to an autocracy, because the oligarchy at least can have internal methods of control, where the autocracy only has chaotic revolutions and coups to rely on.

Yay for a drone society! Fuck individuality! Fuck Liberty! All hail our technocratic oligarchs, of course an oligarchy headed by smart people can never do any wrong!

[Free People of the World]

So you think that the system is unfair. Okay, sure, let's assume that Capitalism is a complete failure (it isn't) and that rich people don't "deserve" their money (varies with the circumstances, in my opinion).

So what do you want to do? You want to "redistribute" wealth (hint: it's called stealing). Basically, you want to take money from rich people and give it to poor people, since apparently the rich people "stole" it from poor people by, in most cases, having the poor people voluntarily pay them for a product. Before you cry, "But they only buy it because they're forced too!", well, sorry to burst your bubble, but they're not. They have this thing called options, thanks to capitalism. If they don't like the way a certain company is treating, them they can take their money elsewhere, unlike in the ideal socialist/communist country, where the government controls everything and people are essentially forced to buy it.

Thus, the axioms of your logic are:

1. Since rich people got rich by making a product that people pay money to get, that is stealing.

2. We should steal from rich people and give the money to poor people (after 95% of that money goes to the government's pocket, I might add)

3. Poor people are poor because rich people "exploited" them (essentially, the rich people pay the poor people to work and make a product, which is then sold to poor people, who voluntarily give money to get that product. The rich people sell the product for a higher price than it takes to make the product, creating something called profit. [by the way, if you think that the business makes too much profit, then take your business elsewhere!] )

4. Rich people stealing from poor people is wrong (by having them voluntarily give them money), but poor people stealing from rich people (by having the government forcibly take their money) is right.

5. The government decides what is "fair." (All I need to say is this: If you think rich people are so corrupt, then why are you entrusting the concept of what is "fair" to a bunch of people at the top, rather than letting people essentially vote with their money through options?)

I see NO flaws in that argument AT ALL

[Pandeeria]

So you think that the system is unfair. Okay, sure, let's assume that Capitalism is a complete failure (it isn't) and that rich people don't "deserve" their money (varies with the circumstances, in my opinion).

So what do you want to do? You want to "redistribute" wealth (hint: it's called stealing). Basically, you want to take money from rich people and give it to poor people, since apparently the rich people "stole" it from poor people by, in most cases, having the poor people voluntarily pay them for a product. Before you cry, "But they only buy it because they're forced too!", well, sorry to burst your bubble, but they're not. They have this thing called options, thanks to capitalism. If they don't like the way a certain company is treating, them they can take their money elsewhere, unlike in the ideal socialist/communist country, where the government controls everything and people are essentially forced to buy it.

Thus, the axioms of your logic are:

1. Since rich people got rich by making a product that people pay money to get, that is stealing.

2. We should steal from rich people and give the money to poor people (after 95% of that money goes to the government's pocket, I might add)

3. Poor people are poor because rich people "exploited" them (essentially, the rich people pay the poor people to work and make a product, which is then sold to poor people, who voluntarily give money to get that product. The rich people sell the product for a higher price than it takes to make the product, creating something called profit. [by the way, if you think that the business makes too much profit, then take your business elsewhere!] )

4. Rich people stealing from poor people is wrong (by having them voluntarily give them money), but poor people stealing from rich people (by having the government forcibly take their money) is right.

5. The government decides what is "fair." (All I need to say is this: If you think rich people are so corrupt, then why are you entrusting the concept of what is "fair" to a bunch of people at the top, rather than letting people essentially vote with their money through options?)

I see NO flaws in that argument AT ALL

Welfare and wealth redistribution isn't really a thing under Socialism, at like, all. The closet thing to it can be the siezed means of production.

[Free People of the World]

So you think that the system is unfair. Okay, sure, let's assume that Capitalism is a complete failure (it isn't) and that rich people don't "deserve" their money (varies with the circumstances, in my opinion).

So what do you want to do? You want to "redistribute" wealth (hint: it's called stealing). Basically, you want to take money from rich people and give it to poor people, since apparently the rich people "stole" it from poor people by, in most cases, having the poor people voluntarily pay them for a product. Before you cry, "But they only buy it because they're forced too!", well, sorry to burst your bubble, but they're not. They have this thing called options, thanks to capitalism. If they don't like the way a certain company is treating, them they can take their money elsewhere, unlike in the ideal socialist/communist country, where the government controls everything and people are essentially forced to buy it.

Thus, the axioms of your logic are:

1. Since rich people got rich by making a product that people pay money to get, that is stealing.

2. We should steal from rich people and give the money to poor people (after 95% of that money goes to the government's pocket, I might add)

3. Poor people are poor because rich people "exploited" them (essentially, the rich people pay the poor people to work and make a product, which is then sold to poor people, who voluntarily give money to get that product. The rich people sell the product for a higher price than it takes to make the product, creating something called profit. [by the way, if you think that the business makes too much profit, then take your business elsewhere!] )

4. Rich people stealing from poor people is wrong (by having them voluntarily give them money), but poor people stealing from rich people (by having the government forcibly take their money) is right.

5. The government decides what is "fair." (All I need to say is this: If you think rich people are so corrupt, then why are you entrusting the concept of what is "fair" to a bunch of people at the top, rather than letting people essentially vote with their money through options?)

I see NO flaws in that argument AT ALL

Welfare and wealth redistribution isn't really a thing under Socialism, at like, all. The closet thing to it can be the siezed means of production.

Doesn't change the truth of a single thing I said.

[Pandeeria]

Welfare and wealth redistribution isn't really a thing under Socialism, at like, all. The closet thing to it can be the siezed means of production.

Doesn't change the truth of a single thing I said.

Your post was based around criticizing welfare, wealth retribution, and theft (ignoring that both sides, poor and rich steal, the latter through surplus labor) in the capitalist system. You're more or less arguing against regulated capitalism.

Which is fine. Every system needs to be looked at in a skeptical manner, criticized, and debated. However, what you were arguing against again is regulated capitalism, or the various names applied to it (Social Democracy, etc.). If you want to criticize Socialism as an economic system, and Communism and it's inevitable political system, then please do so, but actually attack them instead of what among conflate as high taxes + welfare = socialism (when in reality that certainly is not Socialism).