[ttonkytonk]

I've recently read 19th century theologian and scholar Benjamin Jowett's introduction to Plato's Laws, where (I believe) he observes that humankind is merely in the "dawn of politics". He also points out that the state Plato conceives in Laws is in Plato's estimation the "second best" (which limits the richest to having four times as much wealth), with the one described in Republic being his ideal, which Jowett describes as "communistic" (while Jowett was a contemporary of Marx, I am unaware of any mutual regards).

It's not necessary to be a materialist Marxist to embrace Hickel's "mission statement" that “Degrowth is about reducing the material and energy throughput of the economy to bring it back into balance with the living world, while distributing income and resources more fairly, liberating people from needless work, and investing in the public goods that people need to thrive.”

(edited)

[DEADMINCE]

We just need to stop wealth and money hording, by both individuals and companies.

We also have to do more to break the myth that many of these wealthy people earned their wealth, when if any truly did it was a very exception and very small minority.

[mistermann]

> We just need to stop wealth and money hording, by both individuals and companies.

To do that, you "just" have to implement a genuine and functional democracy.

But to do that, you'd first have to realize that the one you have is not that. This part is not possible.

[namlem]

You can't have a functional democracy based on voting and elections, they are too easy to corrupt. We need to transition to sortition and deliberative citizens assemblies.

[DEADMINCE]

You can't have a good functional democracy without an educated and rational population, and there are better solutions in the meantime than waiting for that to manifest.

[DEADMINCE]

A democracy is not the answer. Democracy is tyranny of the masses and nothing more. Democracy gave us Jim Crow laws.

The answer is tighter regulation and laws, and less kowtowing to corporations and 'evil' countries.

[mistermann]

Do you believe it is possible for the course we are on to be changed, to a degree that is in fact "substantial" (as in, after it had been accomplished, widespread opinion would be "Oh yes, that was substantial, there is no fucking doubt.")?

I am beginning to think it is not possible, to put it mildly.

[DEADMINCE]

Oh, I absolutely think it can be changed, but no one would be in favor of the methods needed to change it.

The way I see it, if you have an uneducated, irrational population, or being a significant portion of a population, they need to be managed. They shouldn't be having a say in everything, they are not qualified to have a say in most things. They are basically children. They're basically children.

So to get there, you need to basically eradicate that population by mandating education, and certain types of education. Those same people are going to resist, but really that's the only way, and you need to do that even if there is a cost.

[mistermann]

On one hand, I quite agree with you.

On the other hand: how does one determine who is rational? Once again, you're back to opinion/consensus.

[ttonkytonk]

We need to bravely search for the truth in all matters.

[DEADMINCE]

This seems like a vague comment that doesn't map to mine in any real way. Could you elaborate a little more on your point?

[ttonkytonk]

I believe the real evil is in the conceit of knowledge, and that the gross inequalities of material wealth are actually only symptoms of this.

Roughly 2,500 years ago two giants of ethical philosophy appeared on the scene in the form of Socrates (who can be learned about best through Plato's dialogues and Xenophon's underappreciated Socratic works) and Siddartha Guatama (I would recommend Thich Nhat Hanh's Old Path White Clouds as a reasonably unified source of his life and thought).

I know bringing those guys up probably seems sentimental, but I have lived experience with poverty, and political "realism" is only beneficial to those who have not as yet suffered the consequences of harmful patterns of behavior.

I think Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol illustrates a pretty good path for the exceedingly wealthy to become heroes, but there's this problem of sentiment, isn't there? And yet sentiment is constantly appealed to in all forms of commercial advertising!

People don't even know why or how they are here. Siddartha and Socrates' responses were basically that the answers are difficult to articulate or fathom, but the real pressing issue is how best to live life, and their answers were basically to moderate and do no harm or wrong, at least as much as possible, because the real goods are non-material, and to do wrong actually harms the perpetrator more than the victim.