Oligarchs aren't necessarily rich, they just achieved power in some fashion. Plutarchs achieved power through wealth. It's the main difference between plutocracy and oligarchy. While oligarchy and oligarchs aren't technically incorrect, they are less accurate. Especially if you're trying to drive the point of wealth as being the source of power. Not criticizing, just letting you know there's a faster route to saying what you want to say.
pjhenry1216
joined 1 year ago
This is a ridiculous analogy. It's also to the point of technically arguing one side while sarcastically supporting the other.
And it also ignores my actual point and sets up a straw man anyway. All you're doing is trying to claim I'm making a no true Scotsman fallacy. I am not. I never said every case of communism wasn't communism. I even implicitly stated otherwise by saying communism hasn't been attempted that many times for a statistical significant trend. I stated the failures mentioned were do to other problems. I'm not even claiming communism can or can't work. Just that the arguments provided don't support the conclusion. Being quippy doesn't give a free pass to avoid using logic and reason. I've even made comments against people making bad arguments in support of communism. I just want to see real discussions about it and not folks repeating sound bites from their favorite talking heads.
You literally just defeated your own argument. You just made the claim its your own personal definition and therefore would need to be described every single time you use it otherwise you would have a failure of communication.
Autism is different for everyone and that's why it's terrible to use it to describe the details of something.
And you aren't describing your own experience. You are describing a government system. If you are admitting it's extremely defined and only works in your head and not whoever you're talking to, you will have a failure to communicate.
Edit: actually, that folks disagreed with you enough to comment is more a sign of that failure than any explanation I can provide. And you still provided it as a way to describe other autistics despite claiming otherwise.
This is a very poor understanding of autism. You've taken such a small sliver that this comparison is going to not only offend a lot of people but also confuse a lot of people. The given properties you're invoking are such a small subset of autism and not even that widespread and hell, it ignores the core reasoning behind some. Brutal honesty is often tied with inability to be empathetic. You're doing yourself a disservice using autism as your "model" here.
Looking into it, I can see some issues with the idea (I don't understand how it wouldn't fall pretty to the tragedy of the commons), plus I definitely don't think Sanders would fit into there. I don't see any of his proclaimed positions fitting into any definition of left-libertarian. Plus I don't see how left-libertarian wouldn't fall prey to the same problem we have with capitalism now, despite being an anti-capitalist notion. It's strong sense of individual ownership of anything other than natural resources seems at odds with a lot of other socialist concepts. I will caveat all of this with saying I have a very limited understanding of left-libertarianism, but just reading any given definition just seems to give rise to very clear contradictions. I feel like either it is problematic or no one is really sharing good definitions of it.
You act as if it's been tried any amount of time that would be statistically significant. Sometimes it's not even communism other than in name and folks still count it.
And it doesn't devolve into it. It's simply always been done at the same time. When you have essentially a dictatorship, absolute power will corrupt absolutely.
A practical distinction historically speaking, but not philosophically speaking. If you're unable to differentiate between concepts in history, I don't know how you can ever effectively discuss them objectively. Though, this should have been evident with your comment initially. Communism doesn't devolve into authoritarianism. They're not even the same types of philosophies. One is about governing and one is about commerce. It's like claiming capitalism devolves into a plutocracy. It does help to produce a plutocracy, but it didn't devolve into one. They're not the same thing.
Income share isn't actually a good indicator of anything on its own. One would at the very least need to provide some sort of inflation chart and some sort of equivalent to a consumer price index. Like, it wouldn't mean much if they all had the same income if that income couldn't buy bread for example. not saying that was or was not the case, just using an example of how the given charts are meaningless on their own. That you provided them without even trying to provide context means you're unaware of this and are ignorant to the issue or you're actively misleading people.
You're technically describing the downsides of authoritarianism, bordering on dictatorship, not communism. That being said, I don't believe communism would work either. Communism isn't the only system at play in those scenarios. Again, not defending communism as a good thing, just that the given reasons aren't actually due to communism but other parallel systems that were implemented at those times.
Libertarian cannot work without socialism essentially. You cannot have a free market where the worker doesn't own the means of production. Power will always pool to select individuals and those who have collected power have shown no remotely reliable track record to serve humanity's best interest over their own. In fact, it's regularly shown the exact opposite. Libertarianism is just an excuse to act against the good of society for your own benefit and fuck anyone you step on along the way. I've never heard a defense of libertarianism that is actually good for society. It's basically just dressing up the belief you can't be forced to do good, so you can't get in trouble if you do bad.
The non-voters still matter because they can still choose to vote. They're important and mobilizing them can make a difference.
I'm skeptical of any claims when they're only touted by the one selling it. I'll wait to see if it actually gets implemented anywhere and is verified by a third party.
It absolutely is not obvious. AI, especially today, is usually either generative based on past examples or evolutionary based on given goals. Both of those come with obvious and extreme bias. Bias is actually an integral part of machine learning. It's literally built into the system and is defined and controlled to achieve the results desired.
AI is and always will be biased, moreso by its creators, but absolutely by the information and frameworks provided to it. We have absolutely no idea how to approach the concept of an unbiased AI, or even defining what unbiased would look like. It's philosophically extremely difficult to define what an unbiased person would think or do.
Edit: somehow I missed that last sentence fragment. I don't think we're in disagreement of the conclusion, but possibly just the details of how one arrives at it.