Do you seriously feel you have any capacity to assert any preferences now
-
-
Replying to @la_bug_epoque
Not as much as I'd like, but a king would be a move in the wring direction. But there are dictatorships you can move to.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MoreSocialism
Think more of a ceo. W/ voting powers allocated along lines of property ownership, economic power, and an emphasis on small scale political organization that allows for diverse models to compete. But I’m a rightist, and you are a leftist. There’s not really a point in continuing
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @la_bug_epoque @MoreSocialism
Dictators aren’t accountable to their consumers/citizens. I think it’s perfectly possible have a strong executive and excuse messy interest group politics while still maintaining the social contract.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @la_bug_epoque @MoreSocialism
Governance is a service and like all services it should be subject to optimization via market competition. But we have fundamentally different conceptions of politics/reality and I highly doubt either of us will experience a conversion from a Twitter interaction.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @la_bug_epoque
It'll becomeva game of pure power and the market will be destroyed. The CEO's will become warlords. The market is pretty artifical. Something like that would probably work better with worker cooperatives.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MoreSocialism
Kind of like how socialist regimes devolve into despotism


1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @la_bug_epoque @MoreSocialism
If warlordism wins out, then warlordism is optimal. But seeing how our techno-productive social base doesn’t graft well to despotism I doubt reality will shift into this scenario, as reality tends to select for the most stable scenario that advances techno-productive elements
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @la_bug_epoque @MoreSocialism
Also the only way a market is destroyed if all life on earth ends. As long as more than one person exists, so does the market. Think more abstractly and less economically.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @la_bug_epoque
No. In order to have a free market, you need extremely complex legal machinary to have corporations, currency, monetary, and trade policy, then you have intellectual property, you need law enforcement to protect corporations, and to protect property from people who want it, etc.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
While everything you mentioned certainly helps things run smoother (sometimes, other times it does the opposite), such institutions aren’t dependent on maintaining the current democratic order. They’d still exist if we installed a centralized corporate leadership as I proposed.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.