885
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

The Democracy of the founding fathers was Greek Democracy, predicated upon a slave society, and restricted to only the elite. This is the society we live in today, even with our reforms towards direct representation. The system is inherently biased towards the election of elites and against the representation of the masses. Hamilton called it “faction” when the working class got together and demanded better conditions, and mechanisms were built in (which still exist to this day) that serve to ensure the continued dominance of the elite over the masses. The suffering of the many is intentional. The opulence of the wealthy is also. This is the intended outcome.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

the only moral thing to do is dispossess them of that land.

And give it to who? Who's going to farm that land when they're not allowed to make a profit from it? It's not easy work.

[-] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 12 points 1 year ago

Maybe some of the millions of people who are currently unable to even afford adequate food for themselves because of the profiteering of these very landholders, who engage in such sabotage as mass slaughter and burial of animals to prevent price drops. You know, profits are after wages, right? Profits aren’t wages. You only make profits after you pay wages and costs. So… you pay wages.

[-] galloog1@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

When you place economic decisions from a profit driven one into the hands of the politician, you get just as perverse incentives. What's even worse is that the government cannot fail so the system just gets progressively worse until the entire system collapses. I'm good with a liberal system as is with some moderate reforms to account for externalities.

[-] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 2 points 1 year ago

I will just copy and paste part of my comment that I made to another, because your final argument is the same.

I get it, suffering is okay if it’s the status quo, but if it happens in service of doing better, that’s not okay, so we should just be happy with the status quo, where the vast majority suffer daily indignities and violences, and are forced into exploitation by coercive structures.

You benefit from the current system, so the suffering of the many NOW is less real to you than the potential suffering of yourself in a situation that when enacted had objectively raised the quality of life for the vast majority of people who live in the societies where it was enacted, by all objective measures. Is that it?

this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
885 points (99.9% liked)

196

16452 readers
1784 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS