[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.

[DEADMINCE]

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

I don't think that has to be the case. There are a lot of objective standards you could apply and tests you can do.

For example, as a somewhat bad example, ask people if they trust vaccines or not, and if not why not.

[mistermann]

This is actually a good example, because it demonstrates how "rational" people consider (based on the debacle we just went through) probabilistic predictions to equate to binary truth. Except the problem is: if that's how one thinks, one can't see the error in it.

Epistemology and non-binary logic are not just complex, they're counterintuitive.

However in this case, your excellent "and if not why not qualifier" could possibly save the day...but then it comes down to whether the judge doesn't get it wrong.