Exact, and I believe most forms of power incentives bad actions and the worse individual to take it.
Wich would entail it comes from our nature, dictating the properties of power.
Good actions done by CEOs or the ones being loyal seems to me is coming from another facet of us.
When people are not brain dead by media, both in the US and EU we know all of our problems comes from our own government and fat CEOs.
Foreigners are just one of the many scapegoats they put the blame on.
What it reminds me of is Greeks and then Romans calling them barbarian, from barbar meaning foreigners. This isn’t new…
The problem always was power and the unfit nature of human beings to possess it.
Interesting, well I do have a lot to read on the subject but i’ll add it to my list, I might be pleasantly surprised.
It’s a valid point. But if you want to juge the ideas of anyone I think you also need to educate yourself to a degree.
I do think discussion/debate are a good way to learn though. Although a good debate must be anchored in reality, established knowledge and studies…
In the end I think it comes to what are you gonna trust or challenge. In learning I don’t think you can only rely on one, you need a healthy balance.
(I’d say the more you know the easier it is to challenge more often. A new student might trust his teacher often while researchers might always challenge their peers.)
And I don’t think that apply only to economics or politics, although entertainments might be taken less seriously.
Alternatively I believe in politics there is also a part that’s subjective, depending on your values and culture.
That’s a very detailed explanation, as a scientist as much as I knew about him I didn’t know that much.
Although I do wonder why it would matter.
I mean by that, although a great scientist, politics is not is area of expertise. So I wouldn’t put that much importance in his opinions.
Not that you can’t be curious, but valuing it for his fame is a known bias we should avoid.
It’s especially true for intelligence. We tend to put it on a pedestal like it’s what made Einstein, or anyone, be successful. When it’s only a part.
I’d say intelligence is like a good soil, there is still so much labor to make it into food. Einstein did the work in physics but on any other matter your still just eating dirt.
Maybe I should say I’m not in the US. Media literacy isn’t brand new to me. But the CFR was completely foreign (pun intended), there isn’t quite anything like it where I live.
Although the propaganda model of Herman and Chromsky quoted in your link is very much a mirror of our media too. (Most notably in our television network, own by a single group)
If I understood properly that was the point of your sarcastic comment on the CFR right?
I’m out of the loop what’s the council for and why would they want people to think that? What’s in it for them?
It also makes sens, if you’re not knowledgeable on politics, your reasoning might rather resemble a philosophical one.
And philosophically speaking the basis of liberalism could means both left or right wing values depending on the philosopher.
For exemple Kant’s philosophy was based on rational individuals to wich giving positive rights would permit to govern themselves. It also means laws would be universal wich would create equality. You can see how this could be compatible with some anarchist ideas or more generally with democracy.
In communism you would also have those positive rights. But you would also justify interventions to protect those rights, against lack of resources for instance (although that’s outside of Kant’s scope).
In the contrary, Lock’s ideas is negative rights to protect people from the government and each other. Guaranteeing things like property. And ultimately wanting freedom. Thus giving the right wing liberalism it mainly refers to today.
Furthermore it’s the basis of capitalism. Which, if i’m being honest, is mostly what’s implied by liberalism when it comes to the economy, although i would argue against. With how defective capitalism is you could argue protectionism should be wanted by liberals to prevent all thoses monopolies we see everywhere. In this instance we could see a part of liberalism that tend more towards a leftist idea.
You could lock your doors, but then again next thing you know you find your cat watching locksmith lawyer and clawing its way in.
Damn, I was born in the countryside so the cats I grew up with were all so much more savages.
I’ve seen one of my cat eat the whole mouse in front of me once, it was quite surprising how easily it was gone, nothing left.
What do you mean by population crisis?
In the world it’s the other way around, the demographics are still booming.
You know what came before having better birth control and lower birth rates in most developed countries, medicine and lower death rate. In most of them now both are pretty close (most because there are exceptions like Japan).
I’m not really sure i see a problem with a slight decrease in population in a place where there is already a lot of people.
Well depends what you mean by birth control… is it a way to prevent pregnancy or children?
Since birth is in the name i’d say the term is better suited for referring to anything preventing the birth of a children. But what the term refers to has no barring on what’s happening.
It never meant people don’t make a difference. Any reasonable women knows and feel the difference.
The fact it’s less safe and has worse effects on your health is just another way we realize how serious an abortion is. It will never be inconsequential even if it was safe.
Please do not trust anyone who says people disagree with this. They all have a political reason to lie.
Ski ba bop ba dop bop I’m a scatcat!
Exactly sometimes genuine idiots are so much better than bad faith and manipulative arguments.
I loved the argument with flat earther for instance. It really brought me to rethink about my knowledge, even learning new proofs i wasn’t familiar about. Honestly if I ever have to explain it to my kids, i’d now feel much more confident thanks to them.
With the enshittification Bethesda has already started to go through, it’s a good bet.
Sorry i’m harsh Cuba isn’t quite a dictatorship i give you that one (Although not quite democratic either), maybe that could be a good study.
But saying Stalin or Mao are not dictatorships is just delusional.
The CIA as a source is pretty funny though.
I get it Stalin didn’t quite have all powers, like that’s what it took to classify a government a dictatorship. As if one-party system couldn’t be complex.
(And yes socialist market economy, that really makes a world of difference from capitalist market)
Also to make things clear i wouldn’t have sided with tsar or anyone else than Lenin. I do believe in communism.
Now some improvements may be from communism, i hope so, but don’t pretend you can prove it more than i. It’s not like life expectancy, literacy rate or other factors alike couldn’t rise with another system. It’s not like you could eliminate the possibility of third factors in a time with so much change in all areas of life.
But i sure wouldn’t have followed Stalin in his totalitarian regime. I sure hope if communism was a solution today it would be democratic.
Have you read my comment?
I know capitalism don’t work, everybody does now.
That has nothing to do with the fact we didn’t manage to have one successful exemple of communism either…
So USSR was a dictatorship, the country was in ruin after WW2
The 3 factor i mentioned are there.
The data shows what everyone knows, capitalism increase inequality. But what it doesn’t show is how communism made the country improve, because it didn’t.
What i’m saying is, it couldn’t help because of the war and Stalin. We don’t know if it would’ve otherwise.
Cuba again is a dictatorship, and wasn’t rich.
The PRC is a dictatorship, China went on a horrible famine with Mao. Nowadays getting richer only because of how their economy is now fully capitalist.
So let’s say you had significant data that showed it improved some things socially. And let say you somehow managed to prove its causal and not coincidence.
I would still rather not say dictatorships like USSR or PRC are good to live under.
That’s my point, even if communism was good, dictatorship is a plague that makes any system a nightmare.
Well I get your point and I do agree with your logic. Your correct about capitalism and our system centered around exploitation for profit.
The reason I generalize is because, although capitalism makes it its center, personal gain and profit still exist nonetheless.
Exploitation isn’t as new as capitalism, peasants under their king for instance was a major part of our history.
To me the more power an individual can get, the more he can serve himself, profit and exploit others. I believe this is the rule rather than the exception.
A lesser power would more easily lead to good actions because other incentives would compete with the smaller profit from your power. Hence why non profit organization are more free from corruption. As it’s true for mayor compared to president for instance.
(This is why democracy is such an appealing concept, it divide power in such a way that no one as enough for corruption to exist.)
P.S. I’m ok with long reply, I hope you’re good with that too…