Rant: all forms of socioeconomic systems suck!

[phej]

In the spirit of the, what is wrong with Socialism, Capitalism. I've decided to have a short blurb about why they all suck.

Socialism: Free rider problem, easy to slide into authoritarianism because government knows best

Capitalism: one word: plutocracy. Tragedy of the commons. (ok, so that was two)

Anarchism: social Darwinism at it's worst

Democracy: tyranny of the majority

Monarchy: a euphemism for dictatorship

Discuss.

They all suck because they can be twisted into an authoritative shape. In other words, it's the people and leadership that determine the actual amount liberty in the society.

[mmw]

You are born into the world entitled to nothing, you die entitled to nothing. At least there is some integrity in the anarchy you described. I am not by any means an anarchist this is just an observation.

[Warrior]

They all suck because they can be twisted into an authoritative shape. In other words, it's the people and leadership that determine the actual amount liberty in the society.

Anything can be twisted in some way. If that is why you think they all suck, you need to keep thinking about it.

[Night Runner]

I sense frustration and anger. :uneasy: If you were in the ruling class - that top 1% - would you still feel this way?

[mmw]

For all we know he is in the ruling class and is just engaging in some rabble-rousing for personal amusement.

[hubcap]

I believe it was Winston Churchill who said "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

[PunkinA]

phej, I agree with every sentiment except that any of them actually suck. Each one involves suffering, and each one can be manipulated to increase suffering. All environments are like this. The wilderness operates exclusively on this principle.

What is amazing is that amidst all that chaos and struggle, some ideal of joy or happiness can still occur. Nature offers an ongoing gauntlet where success only entitles the individual to keep on running through the same gauntlet. The systems you rant about are also the most successful means by which our species has attained anything other than business as usual in the animal kingdom.

If these systems suck then everything without sucks more. If anything human socioeconomic systems suck less than the general suckitude that surrounds them.

The fact that they suck to you is but an example of how you fail to grasp the beauty of nature, and how natural laws come about. This reminds me of people in physics classes complaining about the laws of thermodynamics and how much they limit mankind. The optimist sees the beauty of knowing the limits and explores ways to optimize his technology based upon those limits.

This will all change when we are governed by computer overlords.

[nocturne]

Read The Logic of Political Survival by Mesquita, Smith, Siverson, and Morrow.

Although it may seem as though the people in leadership have discretionary power, those that do not take action to satisfy their coaltion of supporters do not remain leaders for long.

[Lucid]

The fact that they suck to you is but an example of how you fail to grasp the beauty of nature, and how natural laws come about.

I think he's just pointing out that no system is without its flaws. Saying that someone fails to grasp the beauty of nature, etc. because they see flaws in our systems is an overreaction. Just because he didn't extol on each system's virtues as well doesn't mean he doesn't see them.

[phej]

The fact that they suck to you is but an example of how you fail to grasp the beauty of nature, and how natural laws come about.

What natural laws of nature? All socioeconomic systems are the creation of man. In all honesty, I don't really care about the idealizations of the socioeconomic systems that I see in this forum and hear and sometimes discuss in real life. It's easy to point out the flaws of each system. Unfortunately, what I find is religious zealotry about a given system. I know that an intj is supposed to be abstract, but pragmatism overrides any blue-sky talk about any of these systems. But, the zealots assume that their system is perfect. All that the zealots need to do is convince everybody else of their cause and assume that everybody will play by the rules to prevent despotism. That's a wrong assumption to make.

This reminds me of people in physics classes complaining about the laws of thermodynamics and how much they limit mankind. The optimist sees the beauty of knowing the limits and explores ways to optimize his technology based upon those limits.

So, when it comes to political systems, I'm a firm believer that you cannot be an optimist. You have to worry about people who will game the system and place checks and balances to prevent special interests from taking the nation hostage. The countries in the world that are the most developed are those that have the least corruption. I believe that this is a causal relationship, not a correlative one.

I think he's just pointing out that no system is without its flaws. Saying that someone fails to grasp the beauty of nature, etc. because they see flaws in our systems is an overreaction. Just because he didn't extol on each system's virtues as well doesn't mean he doesn't see them.

me too, +1, and bump.

Read The Logic of Political Survival by Mesquita, Smith, Siverson, and Morrow.

Any similarities to Mancur Olson's The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities?

[Doppelbock]

They all have their disadvantages.

But capitalism has been shown to work best at lifting a country up out of poverty and improving the lot of the vast majority of a captialist nation's citizens, even though the wealth may not be evenly distributed.

[Storm]

I'm confused as to your point. Nothing's perfect. We have to try and pick out the best system or combination of systems that minimizes the flaws. Unless you've got some sort of secret way of organizing society which doesn't have any flaws.

[PunkinA]

I think he's just pointing out that no system is without its flaws. Saying that someone fails to grasp the beauty of nature, etc. because they see flaws in our systems is an overreaction. Just because he didn't extol on each system's virtues as well doesn't mean he doesn't see them.

You caught me. I was definitely over-inflating my position. I'd appreciate in the future if you wouldn't interrupt while I am listening to the sound of my own voice.