There is only two options to organize large scale human societies:
Free markets
or
Physical power
"But the State lies in all the tongues of good and evil; and whatever he speaks, he lies - and whatever he has, he has stolen. - Nietzsche, So Zarathustra said
"Aber der Staat lügt in allen Zungen der Guten und Bösen; und was er auch redet, er lügt – und was er auch hat, gestohlen hat er's." – Nietzsche, Also sprach Zarathustra
Please please read this:
https://leopedia.io/faq/#what-kind-of-content-can-i-post-on-leofinance
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
The responsibility that is necessarily inherent in the freedom is what the main issue is with the humans. Even the best of them will not take a step back when they make a mistake and own up to it, fixing the damages done, usually that requires a court of law because majority of people are slaves or have a god telling them its okay to manipulate other humans in certain situations.
Not to mention how unevolved most legal systems are on earth, not even over coming gods influences over mans rules, we are a pathetic race... Crutching on 2000 year old lies to uphold the authority in our kangaroo courts.
So until we resolve the god complex and people stop killing each other over belief, there is a significant burden of work to be done on our social as well as economic evolution.
how does one learn to take responsibility?
by not letting him do?
nice try
Hmmmm, this is very black/white and the terms are multi intrepretable.
Free markets
You probably mean: Absolute Free Market without any (centralised) restrictions.
This has some major downsides like those who are not able to compete in whatever form, will be left out. Think of the ill and people with physical and/or mental disabilities. Absolute Free Market basically means: Rich are Richer and the Poor are Poorer with a larger percentage of society becoming a victim of the system. The RIch has most to all of the power.
Physical power
I suppose you mean, centralised power having police forces and armies to control societies? The nuance is: both centralised and decentralised has a form of power (see my statement above). In addition, in the decentralised world we see those with deep pockets, have much more power over the rest, and in the end have more or less all the power. In Theory maybe not, but in practise we see many similarities between centralised power and decentralised power.
Reality
The reality is not as black/white as you bring forward in your post; The reality is very much grey; Full of nuances and in the end the best possible solution is a combination of centralisation and decentralisation. Like our democratic systems are working, combining both worlds. Sure, we can have discussions about the existing systems and if they combine decentralised and centralised world in the best way. I'm even open to re-architect everything we know. For me its clear: We shall not make the choose in black/white terms as you bring forward in your post.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
democratic socialism is one of the biggest bullshit-moves we ever had. Good luck with that.
Also, we in germany now tried social market economy long enough. And it wasn't social at all. They just used it to undermine natural structures. Centralize, regulate and bring under their control.
But yea, you etatists and interventionists will never learn.
I still wish you good luck.
and you should definitely read some austrian school (of economics)
Always interesting how questions I pose regarding the 'weak' members in our societies in a world of absolute freedom and absolute market freedom, are left unanswered. Its easy to shout about a certain system change necesary; And point out the weaknesses of another system. I was hoping my comment would lead to a serious discussion on how the new world as you seem to advocate, will make sure the number of vicitims of such system is minimised. Only through discussion, we will be able to reach to ideas and concepts that are 1) implementable 2) accepted by the mass 3) become successful as possible