Should the government increase spending on public transportation?
Human nature and societal structures make it extremely difficult to erase class divisions entirely.…
Firstly, I don't believe that "human nature" is even an actual, objective thing to begin with; whatever we consider "human nature" is merely a product of our material conditions and the systems in which we are subjected to in our environment at the time. It was only very recently in human history that economic class even became a structural thing, and we can just as easily do without it. I would even argue it is a necessity at this point.
As for statelessness, I would express "the state" and "the government" as two different things, of which I am not necessarily against "the government", as merely a society's means of group decision-making, so long as it is directly-democratic with all members of the public sharing equal decision-making power. I would argue that the only just form of governance is one that is structurally run by and for the public; any kind of hierarchy of decision-making power becomes fundamentally oligarchic, thus privatizing society's power and authority, which I would consider "the state".
When it comes to money, this is only one limited means of allocating resources, in this case by wealth. Allocation of resources in this way becomes unnecessary if there are no privatized sources to "buy" from. If all resources are publicly-owned and allocated democratically by need, then what further use would money have? Thus why the combination of classlessness AND statelessness would inevitably give way to the conditions of abolishing the need for money as well.
Lastly, of course resources are finite, but they don't necessarily need to be infinite either for us to be in "post-scarcity" in any practical sense, just enough resources to provide for us when needed. Especially far enough in the future to where we achieve a type 1 civilization, conquer space travel, etc. (if we make it that long, I guess), but again, I definitely don't expect to see it within my lifetime, just a goal we should at least always be striving towards.
@ThriftyQuokkaLibertarian10mos10MO
“I would argue that the only just form of governance is one that is structurally run by and for the public; any kind of hierarchy of decision-making power becomes fundamentally oligarchic, thus privatizing society's power and authority, which I would consider "the state".”
I would like to point to the example of Switzerland, a highly decentralized federation where direct democracy is practiced at the local level. Yet, they maintain a hierarchical structure at the national level for efficiency and uniformity in legislation and enforcement. This doesn't necessarily lead to oligarchy but provides a balance between direct public involvement and efficient governance.
There's a risk in assuming that a complete absence of hierarchy would lead to a fair and just society. Without any form of structured authority, there's a potential for power vacuums, which could be filled by groups or individuals with their own interests, leading to potential instability.
@VulcanMan6 10mos10MO
I wouldn't say that hierarchy "leads to oligarchy", I would argue that hierarchy IS oligarchy. Any system in which decision-making power is excluded into the hands of a few individuals is fundamentally and definitionally oligarchic, regardless of how those individuals came into power. As such, I would absolutely argue that even "representative democracies" are still oligarchies; just because the population gets to "decide" which few individuals will hold the decision-making power over them, doesn't change the fact that the actual decision-making power… Read more
@ThriftyQuokkaLibertarian10mos10MO
democracy is not inherently oligarchic. It's designed to delegate decision-making to elected representatives, who are held accountable by the electorate. This delegation is a practical necessity due to the complexities of modern governance.
Take the example of India, the world's largest democracy. It would be impractical for the country's 1.3 billion citizens to directly vote on every single issue. Thus, they elect representatives who are supposed to reflect their interests and make decisions on their behalf.
This system doesn't preclude public participation. There are… Read more
@VulcanMan6 10mos10MO
I don't think democracy is oligarchic, just "representative democracy" is oligarchic. Representative democracy is simply oligarchy disguised as a democracy, under the guise of freely choosing your own oligarchs.
I would argue that most of the current complexities of governance are largely the result of our current political and economic bureaucracies, not necessarily any kind of inherent problem of societies itself. Also, not every citizen needs to have a say on every little decision in the world, only in the decisions that apply to you or whatever "group" you are in,… Read more
@9DRRZJZ9mos9MO
False! What seperates government from private business is government is an institution that reserves the power to use force on innocent persons. Only government can demand that you obey its decrees or is will send people with guns and chains to drag you off to prison or court. No other institution may do this. This is called political power, and its the most dangerous thing known to man. It currupts the souls of all who use it and makes government nothing more than pure evil. Of course, the evil is necessary on an infinitisimal scale to prevent threats to our liberty under anarchy, by securin… Read more