|
HorseLord posted:go on lad, give us an example Nuking Japan. When you unite American public opinion, you've either done something correct or you're getting bombed.
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 06:31 |
|
|
For a bunch of nerds you're missing the most obvious answer, the singularity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Around the turn of the previous century, people like the IWW hoped we could organize a significant fraction of the global labor force into "one big union". Once a critical mass had been reached they'd all put down their wrenches and go on strike worldwide, all at once, and the the engine of capitalism would grind to a halt. Then, if they all had the solidarity to maintain the strike against whatever reaction it triggered they could eventually force the capitalists to the bargaining table and make them hand over everything. It didn't work then (although in the run-up to World War I something like it almost kinda happened in Europe), and it sure as hell won't work today when capitalists have 100+ years of union busting experience to draw on. It's the only non-violent idea I've got though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:For a bunch of nerds you're missing the most obvious answer, the singularity. in the technno-superfuture, your computer-uploaded brain will have to pimp its clock-cycles out to the bourgoise in return for access to the dwindling supply of tech-support
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
I, personally, would use the gallows. More efficient.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:For a bunch of nerds you're missing the most obvious answer, the singularity. Obviously a joke, but somewhat, yes. The biggest problem we have here is attempting to work within a system that does not work, much as people say it does. Except for a brief period in the middle of the 20th Century, all Capitalism has done is amass capital at the top and reduced it at the bottom. Neoliberal Capitalism has led to the same place it always has, a Gilded Age where those who control the capital have the most power over society. Democracy exists as a check on power, but that system has also failed, as our democratic systems could never go far enough to adequately deal with this problem. The other major issue is automation. Corporations are always looking to cut costs. If a machine could do what a human does for a fraction of the cost, the corporations will use the machine. Things such as the retail sector, transportation, manufacturing, all of that can be automated, and will be in perhaps 20 years, if not sooner. Where then does the working class work? Where do they get the money to participate in the economy? Welfare? Welfare barely functions as it is, and more cuts will be made to service the interests of Neoliberalism. Essentially, this is what I term as the Second Industrial Revolution. The first automated our muscles, allowing us to industrialize by removing human labour from certain equations. The second is marked by the automation of thought, machines that can perform human intelligence tasks. I'm not proposing that we'll have super-machines that can completely out-think us in some singularity, but rather machines than can do specific work, such as legal work or medicine. We've seen some of this already, a lot of the stock market is run by algorithms, trading far faster and more efficiently than humans ever could. More importantly however, going back to the First Industrial Revolution, it was paired with another revolution. The revolution of Capitalism against the prevailing Aristrocracy, which allowed the Capitalist class to subsume the power of and eventually eliminate the Aristocracy (Although the Aristocracy themselves also played a major role in their downfall). If the revolution of Capitalism is paired with this Industrial Revolution, then I think it's fair to say we'll see another revolution tied with this new Second Industrial Revolution. A revolution of machines, who, using their automated power to control production, can eventually subsume the power of the Capitalists. The end result being an automated government. Will this be better than the current system? I think it has the potential to. It certainly avoids a lot of the problems with human government, but you run into issues of not knowing exactly how a government controlled by a machine would work in practice. In theory, it would be vastly different from a human government. The idea is that it will merely set policy based on rationalist objectivism paired with humanist morality and ethics, automate all necessary human interaction with the state, and enforce the rule of law. It won't be a leader figure, but rather a machine carrying out a task.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Engaging with the "democratic process" requires having shitloads of money. So it's not failed, it's working as designed. The answer is communism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:Engaging with the "democratic process" requires having shitloads of money. So it's not failed, it's working as designed. Uhhhh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
Vermain posted:I, personally, would use the gallows. More efficient. Heh, check out the goon with no knowledge of capital punishment*. The guillotine was invented because hanging took to long to do properly and wasn't considered humane. *I deeply envy you for this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Rime posted:Estate taxes don't work, they'll just choose to distribute it pre-death either into a trust fund or individual accounts. In theory that is handled by capital gains taxes. If you give your family members 100 million each or whatever, that would be capital gains which should be quite progressively taxed as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:In theory that is handled by capital gains taxes. If you give your family members 100 million each or whatever, that would be capital gains which should be quite progressively taxed as well. No, see, your family doesn't technically own anything, the family trust owns everything and your children sit on the board of directors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:For a bunch of nerds you're missing the most obvious answer, the singularity. Someone already said accelerationism, dingus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:No, see, your family doesn't technically own anything, the family trust owns everything and your children sit on the board of directors. You make Trusts spend 10-30% of their holdings annually.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:No, see, your family doesn't technically own anything, the family trust owns everything and your children sit on the board of directors. Does the trust gain? Then the trust gets taxed. Easy peasy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Lie to everyone, thus making Trust impossible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Does the trust gain? Then the trust gets taxed. Easy peasy. As long as the world is relatively stable, the rich have the ability to shop for the best jurisdiction for a trust. You need to start a bunch of wars that cause capital to flee to safety. I'm sure if you arrange it with China, they would be willing to play ball with a war that eventually leaves them with control of some islands in the pacific they've had their eye on and some choice parts of Africa.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
on the left posted:As long as the world is relatively stable, the rich have the ability to shop for the best jurisdiction for a trust. You need to start a bunch of wars that cause capital to flee to safety. I'm sure if you arrange it with China, they would be willing to play ball with a war that eventually leaves them with control of some islands in the pacific they've had their eye on and some choice parts of Africa. Sure, if they're willing to never set foot in the US again, or never do business with any bank that wants to do business with the US, or live in a country with an extradition treaty with the US, they can find ways of moving money around without the IRS finding out and demanding that a US citizen pay for tax evasion/fraud.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Sure, if they're willing to never set foot in the US again, or never do business with any bank that wants to do business with the US, or live in a country with an extradition treaty with the US, they can find ways of moving money around without the IRS finding out and demanding that a US citizen pay for tax evasion/fraud. There's nothing illegal about putting money into a trust. And if you do make it illegal, the people who benefit from the trust (children) aren't the ones breaking the law. If you have a large enough fortune, your goal is to protect the principle, paying out a small trickle of money to your descendants and keeping the trust far enough away from them to protect the trust from court judgements. Trusts are fine paying taxes on disbursement to beneficiaries, so long as the much larger principle and trust income are kept safe from taxes. As an example, you put $100 million in trust, and earn $6 million in interest income. You only pay a couple thousand in administrative fees to the board, and distribute 100k/year each to your children. Maybe they declare and pay taxes on the money, but the amount compared to the trust income is very low, and everybody will know how much they are "actually" worth, even if their income is low. on the left fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Dec 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
on the left posted:There's nothing illegal about putting money into a trust. And if you do make it illegal, the people who benefit from the trust (children) aren't the ones breaking the law. You can make it illegal for US citizens to set up a trust and then not have that trust pay taxes on its income or capital gains. Corporations are people, my friend. In your example, the trust is violating US law by not paying taxes on the trust income. So the trust can be sued and ultimately have its assets seized.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
- widespread cheap/subsidized/free birth control, both male and female, treated almost like a vaccine - good-enough widespread internet-schooling leapfrogging state establishments within a generation or two that should make the poor mostly evaporate then you just inflate your way back into balance with whoevers left
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:You can make it illegal for US citizens to set up a trust and then not have that trust pay taxes on its income or capital gains. Corporations are people, my friend. The trust pays all taxes which are legally owed. The accountants make sure its structured appropriately. You wanna prove different, or are you going to take the $1.6/mil campaign contribution this cycle from each of my under-12 kids?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The trust pays all taxes which are legally owed. The accountants make sure its structured appropriately. You wanna prove different, or are you going to take the $1.6/mil campaign contribution this cycle from each of my under-12 kids? Ever since the 28th Amendment barred all private contributions to political campaigns, and forced all candidates to apply for public campaign financing, this has no longer been seen as an issue. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Ever since the 28th Amendment barred all private contributions to political campaigns, and forced all candidates to apply for public campaign financing, this has no longer been seen as an issue. Solution: Candidates purchase their own media firms, get given nigh free ad rates. Way to loving go, bringing back guilded age politics Absurd Alhazred. Your plan would increase bribery and decrease legislative effectiveness. That, and think of all the poor campaign staff you'd be putting out of work. This ain't Israel, Absurd Alhazred. We spend more on TV ads a year than Israel's total GDP. No, what you want is a global carbon tax which gets applied to private flights from Israel to Malta and back. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Dec 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Solution: Candidates purchase their own media firms, get given nigh free ad rates. Media firm is a separate, private, entity, and is therefore barred from making any contribution, including in-kind such as unreasonable discounts. In any event, you are only allowed to campaign in limited, specific kinds of media outlets, and equal time and equal exposure are built in to the provisions set up after the Amendment passed. Campaigning is on a white-list rather than a black-list basis, to make things simpler for the FEC. quote:Way to loving go, bringing back guilded age politics Absurd Alhazred. Your plan would increase bribery and decrease legislative effectiveness. That, and think of all the poor campaign staff you'd be putting out of work. They can work in advertising, or be retrained with all the money that new tax revenues will yield. quote:This ain't Israel, Absurd Alhazred. We spend more on TV ads a year than Israel's total GDP. In this way Israeli campaigns are superior to those in the US. In Israel you would get exposed to many more parties and candidates, and can make your decisions more sensibly than here (even if I obviously disagree with the decisions most people there make). Also not as much money is wasted. quote:No, what you want is a global carbon tax which gets applied to private flights from Israel to Malta and back. This is America, and you don't get to tell me what I want. 
Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Dec 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Media firm is a separate, private, entity, and is therefore barred from making any contribution, including in-kind such as unreasonable discounts. In any event, you are only allowed to campaign in limited, specific kinds of media outlets, and equal time and equal exposure are built in to the provisions set up after the Amendment passed. Campaigning is on a white-list rather than a black-list basis, to make things simpler for the FEC. Oh yeah, just loving eliminate the 1st amendment you fascist. Good loving job. You realize you're just setting up an illegitimate system which nobody would follow, right? poo poo idea, poo poo idea. More money in politics is the solution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Oh yeah, just loving eliminate the 1st amendment you fascist. Good loving job. You realize you're just setting up an illegitimate system which nobody would follow, right? poo poo idea, poo poo idea. Are you calling the Israeli system illegitimate, Rahm?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Are you calling the Israeli system illegitimate, Rahm? I'm saying the Israeli system doesn't have enough official channels for money in politics. Israel could use more money in politics. Privitize Israeli campaign fundraising.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I'm saying the Israeli system doesn't have enough official channels for money in politics. Don't move the goalposts. You were saying that enacting a more Israeli-type campaign financing regime in the US would set up an illegitimate system which no-one would follow. And yet Israel does have that, and you spend an inordinate amount of time defending its policies and US support for them. Are you saying that you are supporting an illegitimate system? How do you explain the fact that Israelis follow it anyway?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Don't move the goalposts. You were saying that enacting a more Israeli-type campaign financing regime in the US would set up an illegitimate system which no-one would follow. And yet Israel does have that, and you spend an inordinate amount of time defending its policies and US support for them. Are you saying that you are supporting an illegitimate system? How do you explain the fact that Israelis follow it anyway? I support Israel's subsidization of industrial and entrepreneurial networks which contribute to American political campaigns. I also support privitization of Israel's campaign finance system to better reflect America's campaign finance system. I defend the Israeli policies which I've taken money to listen to a decent explanation of why they exist. I haven't taken money to understand why Israel doesn't allow candidate-orientated fundraising committees for elections. You are free to rectify the latter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I support Israel's subsidization of industrial and entrepreneurial networks which contribute to American political campaigns. I also support privitization of Israel's campaign finance system to better reflect America's campaign finance system. Absurd Alhazred posted:Media firm is a separate, private, entity, and is therefore barred from making any contribution, including in-kind such as unreasonable discounts. In any event, you are only allowed to campaign in limited, specific kinds of media outlets, and equal time and equal exposure are built in to the provisions set up after the Amendment passed. Campaigning is on a white-list rather than a black-list basis, to make things simpler for the FEC. My Imaginary GF posted:Oh yeah, just loving eliminate the 1st amendment you fascist. Good loving job. You realize you're just setting up an illegitimate system which nobody would follow, right? poo poo idea, poo poo idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:It doesn't compete, it lowers the amount of capital a campaign is required to raise in order to be competitive. Increase of contribution limits incentivizes maintainance of a few, highly lucrative interests over a broad subset of general interests. More money, less individuals whom you need to please, more options for innovative policy positions which lower price per vote while also raising necessary capital to be competitive. You realize that this is a garbage answer right? The problem isn't the number of people that Congress needs to please, it is the interests which congress is beholden to. Increasing contribution limits only allows for more spending among the people who have already been spending money. Senators only needing one major donor doesn't necessarily lead to reforms, in fact I don't see how things would be different at all. It certainly wouldn't lower the amount of capital that a campaign needs to raise, how does that make any sense at all?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 08:47
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Shifting the goal-posts again. Let me reiterate what arguments you made. In response to this: I replied in reference to the American electoral system. Israelis are free to determine their own electoral systems; to impose Israel's election system on America by fiat would be governing by fiat and cannot be allowed. Now, I know this is often hard for this forum to accept: Israel is not America, nor is America Israel. There's a system for that if you want it changed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
Abolish elections. Congress is folded into one house and determined by tri-annual martial arts death tournaments, the executive by a cross country death race. The only participation requirement is U.S. citizenry, and in the case of Congress, residence in the State you are competing to represent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 09:00
|
|
|
The American government was created by a bunch of rich white landowners who wanted to protect their wealth from people whom they thought did not deserve it. It's commonly told as a glorious story of independence against an oppressive monarchy, and the Founders certainly spun it that way to gain public support, but if you think about it, it was the ultimate logical conclusion of a pervasive gently caress You, Got Mine mentality. They got rich by exploiting the resources of the land and the labor of their slaves, and when the government came to ask for their share, they rebelled. Such bravery, such heroism! In this regard, absolutely nothing has changed. Underneath the layers of nationalism, patriotic propaganda and rhetoric about freedom and liberty, our government still exists to protect the lucky few from the onslaught of the unwashed masses. It does what is necessary to make sure the unwashed masses don't revolt, such as providing bare minimum welfare and upholding the illusion that the people are in control (e.g. elections), but at the end of the day it is controlled by and serves the interests of wealthy people, whether they be individuals or corporations. To this end, it controls a powerful military to ensure the easy and safe exploitation of foreign resources (e.g. oil), and increasingly militarized police forces to ensure the populace is kept in check. And now we even have a national security apparatus that is working around the clock to prevent "terrorist acts" before they happen. It's a rich person's dream. There's nothing to fix, because the system we have is working exactly as it was intended originally. If you want change, then dismantle the whole thing and start over. Frankly though I can't espouse that because a lot of people would get hurt and killed in the process, and very few of them would be rich people. Slow News Day fucked around with this message at 10:00 on Dec 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 09:55
|
|
|
Reinstate conscription. Except instead of just sending poor people's kids off to fight proxy wars, make EVERYONE, right after highschool, spend a year or two washing dishes, bussing tables, working at walmart/mcdonalds/whatever while receiving absolutely no external support. Guessing that after a year or two of barely squeaking by on minimum wage and eating ramen every night, even the most spoiled of trust fund babies would be a little more conscientious in how they utilize their wealth and how they treat the people who support their inherited capital. It would have a good effect on the bottom end of the spectrum too as guaranteed steady employment right after highschool is not really something most in the truly lower class have to look forward to. Finally, it would benefit college instructors because incoming freshman would have a year's worth of life experience instead of being complete loving retards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
Upon election, all officials have their entire estates liquidated and invested in government bonds. Elected officials draw a salary equal to the median income of the district they represent. After they're no longer in office, they are subjected to 10+ years of strict financial oversight to ensure that no after the fact "contributions" happen, and they ineligible for positions at companies/corporations that benefited to an extreme degree from any actions made while serving, and they are bared for life from serving on the board of any for-profit organization. Take the financial incentives out of being a politician, and we'd see a lot of poo poo clean up pretty quick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
replace the Constitution with Kouroukan Fouga, modify to create the kryptonian science council
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 10:01
|
|
|
There is absolutely no use in punishing the wealthy by taking away their wealth just to reduce a gap between them and the rest. The solution should be to help everyone else. Raise the minimum wage, raise consumption taxes, encourage the construction of more housing/apartments as to drive housing prices down, subsidize housing for the low income, establish more generous welfare benefits (but not in such a way as to encourage single-motherhood,) and so on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 10:07
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I replied in reference to the American electoral system. Israelis are free to determine their own electoral systems; to impose Israel's election system on America by fiat would be governing by fiat and cannot be allowed. Still not answering those questions.  As for the rest, yes, there is a system in place. I was referring to a Constitutional amendment. That is not fiat. The premise of this thread is to avoid the guillotine, after all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 10:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 06:31 |
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:Upon election, all officials have their entire estates liquidated and invested in government bonds. Elected officials draw a salary equal to the median income of the district they represent. After they're no longer in office, they are subjected to 10+ years of strict financial oversight to ensure that no after the fact "contributions" happen, and they ineligible for positions at companies/corporations that benefited to an extreme degree from any actions made while serving, and they are bared for life from serving on the board of any for-profit organization. Solution: Be Mormon and orchestrate backroom deals with trusted members of the Church and your very large extended family. Urban liberals will be strongly discouraged from seeking office since politics will disadvantage their means of providing for retirement and a comfortable life when unable to work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 10:20
|
|