Ideal Political/Economic System (3 Viewers)

[Völler]

Nzoric is a socialist

*Communist

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Brandmon]

The one where people can beat politicians with baseball bats for incompetence. All the time.

 

[IrishZebra]

The one where people can beat politicians with baseball bats for incompetence. All the time.

Italo-Romanian post dictatorial anarchy.

 

[Lapa]

I don't expect you stupid fucks to have any great ideas...please, surprise me.

 

[swag]

@Martin

Extremely dubious claim there, Gregster. Systems are what cause people to become rotten, from prisons to the stock market to forums. The system sets the incentives, the individuals figure out how to extract the maximum benefit using them, without fail.

OK, I agree there are incentives and encouraged behaviors. But what changes are the people and, well, time. The USSR of 1957 was very different than the one in 1982, for example, and yet they were under the same system. There are countless other examples.

Point is that debating what systems are better is little more than an exercise in mental masturbation if you do not consider those "other" all-important factors for how any such system is operated and executed. You cannot apply superposition here with a political system as one independent variable.

 

[Trequartista]

You what? Weren't you saying a few weeks back that the whole thing should be torn down and something new should replace it because the system is broken?

I was talking about Quebec's system, which is different. We have a lot of autonomy compared to other provinces, enabling our incompetent politicians to implement their retarded plans.

The Canadian system overall is great, with the exception of Quebec. Pretty much all the other provinces are doing great. The rest Canada is going in the right direction while we're going in a quite bad place, here in Quebec.

 

[Martin]

OK, I agree there are incentives and encouraged behaviors. But what changes are the people and, well, time. The USSR of 1957 was very different than the one in 1982, for example, and yet they were under the same system. There are countless other examples.

Point is that debating what systems are better is little more than an exercise in mental masturbation if you do not consider those "other" all-important factors for how any such system is operated and executed.

I think we're in semantics again. The bolded part I would say are characteristics of the system. Of course different people will operate a "system" in different ways, but that still produces a system, not a theoretical one but the actual resulting one.

 

[Mirko]

Perfect system is Libertarianism. There is nothing better.

Socialism sucks, eventually everbody gets bankruped and half the country is on welfare.
Great quote from Margaret Thatcher:
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

 

[Martin]

Perfect system is Libertarianism. There is nothing better.

Socialism sucks, eventually everbody gets bankruped and half the country is on welfare.
Great quote from Margaret Thatcher:
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

Quotes are great because you never run out.

 

[Trequartista]

Perfect system is Libertarianism. There is nothing better.

Socialism sucks, eventually everbody gets bankruped and half the country is on welfare.
Great quote from Margaret Thatcher:
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

Libertarianism is far from perfection. The optimal place is somewhere in the middle between socialism and libertarianism.

 

[swag]

I think we're in semantics again. The bolded part I would say are characteristics of the system. Of course different people will operate a "system" in different ways, but that still produces a system, not a theoretical one but the actual resulting one.

Nuh uh. That's like saying that access to labor and access to capital are necessary ingredients to the Industrial Revolution so both elements can be treated harmoniously as a single unit. You can't watch a movie like Chaplin's Modern Times and say man and machine are a matter of semantics.

 

[Martin]

Nuh uh. That's like saying that access to labor and access to capital are necessary ingredients to the Industrial Revolution so both elements can be treated harmoniously as a single unit. You can't watch a movie like Chaplin's Modern Times and say man and machine are a matter of semantics.

Huh?

 

[IrishZebra]

The problem with 'Human Beings as Utility Maximisers operating with structural constraints' is only a small matter. That matter is the inherent altruism of us as a species.

Although Altrusim can be utility so I guess my point is moot.

Either way reward/constraints and self-help are tenuous linked to history.

 

[swag]

Huh?

If I must use more modern parlance: when you hate the game and not the playa, it's because the playa and game are separate, yo.

Peace out!

 

[Martin]

If I must use more modern parlance: when you hate the game and not the playa, it's because the playa and game are separate, yo.

Peace out!

A historic understanding was not reached that day.

 

[IrishZebra]

A historic understanding was not reached that day.

The tragedy of great poster politics...

 

[Raz]

If I must use more modern parlance: when you hate the game and not the playa, it's because the playa and game are separate, yo.

Peace out!

Sounds like something from The Wire.

 

[Enron]

Sounds like something from The Wire.

Just cause black people say it?

 

[Nzoric]

Why is Swag trolling so hard? Unlike him

 

[GordoDeCentral]

The problem with 'Human Beings as Utility Maximisers operating with structural constraints' is only a small matter. That matter is the inherent altruism of us as a species.

Although Altrusim can be utility so I guess my point is moot.

Either way reward/constraints and self-help are tenuous linked to history.

it's not a utility on an individual level, if anything it is a hinderance; but thank God we are not machines to be driven solely by efficiencies.