More on the evils of capitalism.
- Thread starter ViRedd
- Start date
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
But which people? That's the nub. How to intercept the proven human bent for the ambitious to start gathering it in? cn
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
learning05
Active Member
I agree with that. Looking at it as "individuals and societies marked by an ability for the individual to subscribe/unsubscribe." But in all monetary societies income has historically equated to one's influence be it political or professional. So one can move through income "groups" but the degree to which one can gain more money is controlled by in all industries. That is why I mention a "working class" I see it as comprising all individuals who are working for someone else or owning a small business. When one has debt and bills to pay, being politically active becomes increasingly difficult as employers way low wages and require longer hours.
I also agree voluntary kindness has not been the norm till now but I do think it is possible. Like I mentioned earlier we are shaped by our experience and education so if the majority wishes things shall change. I may be too naive but hence why I am still a student of life. But with our advances in medicine, science, law, and technology, I believe it is more possible now than it was in the past.
I also agree voluntary kindness has not been the norm till now but I do think it is possible. Like I mentioned earlier we are shaped by our experience and education so if the majority wishes things shall change. I may be too naive but hence why I am still a student of life. But with our advances in medicine, science, law, and technology, I believe it is more possible now than it was in the past.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I do not trust everyone I have ever met.
Even so, I accept the wisdom of Be the change you wish to see in the world. My contribution is "no deceptively easy answers". I apologize that that does not satisfy. cn
learning05
Active Member
Be the change you wish to see...ghandi thinking.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I will be a student of life until the strength to hold onto it is stolen from my fingers. cn
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
You and I both!
I suspect abandonconflict as well, but in my subjective opinion he needs to leaven his black&white views with the sort of human wisdom only the wear&tear of living a long time in human society provides.
(hope: ) I could be wrong. cn
learning05
Active Member
But you gotta ask yourself why do people wish to gain off others? Not referring to psychological disorders. But people raised to believe happiness does not come from wealth but relations- I think is what we need to emphasize more nowadays. Also, if people had more means of survival in these tough economic times i.e. higher incomes and fairer/more proportional representation in the legal world, they would not need to mislead or harm others for their own gain. Also providing low income earners with opportunity to progress is key.
When CEOs accept less and not evade taxes - it will allow more money to trickle down to the lowest level of incomes. We are encouraged to compete and our success equates with greater income which is considered as better life quality. The income gaps leads us to want to "deceive" each other so we can survive- Capitalism is flawed. But I don't know if mankind has evolved enough to be willing to be even. Some people have deep beliefs of saying one human is better than another. Society has blinded us to thinking like this which all fuels the consumerist agenda.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I follow a "Nash game theory"-style paradigm. When the reward for defection is disproportionate, some folks (without any disorder at all) will pee into the punchbowl. cn
learning05
Active Member
Can you explain that a little further? I am familiar with the game theory in the general one's win is another's loss...
Doer
Well-Known Member
That is the foundation of game theory. (forget Games, this is mathematically real) The Zero Sum Game.
The Stock market is Zero Sum.
Someone takes our money to win and we, therefore, lose.
But, there are other games. Such as GO. Where all moves force the next move.
Tick-tack-to....the first move always wins.
Chicken in Automobiles. The first move loses. There is an interesting sub-game here. We are heading at each other combined 150 mph....
What if I take off my steering wheel, hold it out the window for you to see....and drop it on the road? I win.
MAD. It is also Kobiashi Maru. Change the rules to win. Sun Tsu. Art of War.
You also have various arachno-economic theories. Keynes, Voodoo....
Those are 1)Govt saves for a rainy day. (and secretly spends all the money) and 2) make the Top richer and the bottom gets pennies but less and less of those.
So, all rigors of math. Proofs. Nash won the Nobel Prize for Co-opretition Math.
Make a bigger pie with structured competition. Guard with force, the completions and regulate them, but do not fetter them unnecessarily with social theories.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
For me, the simplest way to show the underlying idea is the "Prisoner's Dilemma" matrix on this page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium
The defector always walks away with something ... a lot of something if he has someone nice to bushwack.
This imo is the problem that models of a cooperative society have to address. Marx forgot this detail, and look. cn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium
The defector always walks away with something ... a lot of something if he has someone nice to bushwack.
This imo is the problem that models of a cooperative society have to address. Marx forgot this detail, and look. cn
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
The game proves that mutual aid is the most beneficial strategy, hands down. It also shows that most people, at least most people who could be found to participate, are too selfish to benefit from mutual aid. It is more diagnostic of the participants than indicative of human nature.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
No! It is the best strategy for the group-minded, but not the selfish! It fails the "what's in it for me?" test! That is why I relentlessly bang away with the question "how to limit the amoral opportunists?" The guys who're mesmerized by the Big Score, and who think of their nominal collaborators as Suckers. cn
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Mutual aid is BY FAR the best strategy. The selfish exist at the detriment of the rest. Why glorify them? Why pronounce them fittest?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I am not pronouncing them fittest, but they sure see themselves that way. I recognize that they are out there and have the easy capacity to ruin the game.
What i refuse to do is ignore them lalalalaaa. That is the undertone I am getting from your post. Just because we agree that the let's-work-together solution is superior doesn't mean it's the only game in town. i think that's a key difference in our outlooks and approaches. They and their doings must be incorporated into the socio-polotico-economic paradigm. Not doing so defines the utopian philosophies.
Synopsis: a robust societal ethic spoils the Prisoner's Dilemma matrix. What I don't know is how deeply that matrix is selected, ingrained into us by half a billion years of predation and defense against it. It might be an axiomatic feature of our meat; which would handily explain our millennia of failure in coming up with a durable solution to a problem most of us viscerally agree needs addressing. cn
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Prisoner's dilemma?
I never suggested ignoring them. Nor have I ignored them for a second. I constantly berate them actually.
I never suggested ignoring them. Nor have I ignored them for a second. I constantly berate them actually.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
I've been trying to understand the philosophy so I've done a very small bit of reading. This is what I understand at this point, correct me if I'm wrong AC.
They believe it is not inherent in nature for one to dominate another. The only reason we have hierarchies is because we tolerate them. If we were to abolish these, we would co-exist in equality. Man's basic nature of self would be over ruled by his cognitive reasoning for the greater good, once these restrictions of freedom were removed. The argument is we are conditioned into selfishness and hierarchy and it is NOT natural.
I haven't found yet how they explain lead dogs and packs that follow in nature. Admittedly though I haven't read much. I haven't seen comparisons to anything in nature when they talk about man's nature. We are given a lot of credit as a species.
They believe it is not inherent in nature for one to dominate another. The only reason we have hierarchies is because we tolerate them. If we were to abolish these, we would co-exist in equality. Man's basic nature of self would be over ruled by his cognitive reasoning for the greater good, once these restrictions of freedom were removed. The argument is we are conditioned into selfishness and hierarchy and it is NOT natural.
I haven't found yet how they explain lead dogs and packs that follow in nature. Admittedly though I haven't read much. I haven't seen comparisons to anything in nature when they talk about man's nature. We are given a lot of credit as a species.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I've never seen it. I have never seen you directly address the problem of selfishness and its disproportionate potential for reward. cn