History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History

[stevep]

If the non fossil fuels could be used as a replacement, they would be, because there would be more profit in a less scarce resource. Just like shale oil in the past, biofuel will be adopted as soon as it is cheap enough and oil is expensive enough to be viable.

All of the megacorps you think are blocking the alternatives, they are actually investing in the alternatives so that they can keep their power when the natural resources they rely on run out.

This is why car manufacturers began making electric cars so far back that the cost of the technology forced electric cars to be in the price range of luxury cars.

Your assuming that laissez faire capitalism actually works as some of its founders suggested. Unfortunately human corruption too often gets in the way.

 

[Doomsought]

Your assuming that laissez faire capitalism actually works as some of its founders suggested. Unfortunately human corruption too often gets in the way.

Corruption only ever works by pushing the affairs away from laissez faire capitalism. As long as you prevent the corporations from using coercion directly or using the state as a tool for coercion, it works great, and you can always recognize corruption by it being anti-capitalist.

 

[stevep]

Corruption only ever works by pushing the affairs away from laissez faire capitalism. As long as you prevent the corporations from using coercion directly or using the state as a tool for coercion, it works great, and you can always recognize corruption by it being anti-capitalist.

Corruption is inevitable with nothing to keep it in check. [Which of course doesn't mean it doesn't occur if such attempts are themselves perverted by established interests]. Which is why so many large organisations favour limiting rules and regulation ASAP. It also means they can use other methods - if we definite corruption as purely illegal activity - such as cartels and using their size to hinder new entrants or to swamp people with false information.

Corruption is anti-capitalist IF you define capitalism as operation of free markets without the measures mentioned above. If as it too often is, anti-capitalism is defined as anything which stops large institutions abusing their power then "capitalism" is a tool for massive corruption and looting by established interests.

 

[Doomsought]

Which is why so many large organisations favour limiting rules and regulation ASAP.

Sweet summer child, large organizations favor limiting rules and regulations because they are corrupt, not to prevent corruption. Regulations create a barrier to entry, they are a tool corruption uses to legitimize gate-keeping.

The capitalist method to deal with bad actors is liability. Liability is far more efficient than regulations. With regulations you have to define standards for everything that can cause a harm, and they will often be wrong either due to ignorance or bribery. With liability, you just have to define the harms and reality itself will define the standards for you.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

Sweet summer child, large organizations favor limiting rules and regulations because they are corrupt, not to prevent corruption. Regulations create a barrier to entry, they are a tool corruption uses to legitimize gate-keeping.

The capitalist method to deal with bad actors is liability. Liability is far more efficient than regulations. With regulations you have to define standards for everything that can cause a harm, and they will often be wrong either due to ignorance or bribery. With liability, you just have to define the harms and reality itself will define the standards for you.

Large jointly owned organizations with limited liability are never actually liable for anything. The whole point of 'capitalism' as actually practiced, as opposed to theory, is to divorce ownership, control, profits, and responsibility from each other.

 

[Bassoe]

No those things aren't available yet but their not needed.

By the time they are obviously necessary, the oil and rare earth ores will have ran out and it won't be possible to build them. Only starting now, when the world still has the material richness, can work.

Corruption only ever works by pushing the affairs away from laissez faire capitalism. As long as you prevent the corporations from using coercion directly or using the state as a tool for coercion, it works great, and you can always recognize corruption by it being anti-capitalist.

Corruption is inevitable with nothing to keep it in check. [Which of course doesn't mean it doesn't occur if such attempts are themselves perverted by established interests]. Which is why so many large organizations favor limiting rules and regulation ASAP. It also means they can use other methods - if we definite corruption as purely illegal activity - such as cartels and using their size to hinder new entrants or to swamp people with false information.

Corruption is anti-capitalist IF you define capitalism as operation of free markets without the measures mentioned above. If as it too often is, anti-capitalism is defined as anything which stops large institutions abusing their power then "capitalism" is a tool for massive corruption and looting by established interests.

Counterargument. The inevitable end result of modern 'libertarianism', aka, 'weaken anything that could stop the corporations from taking over everything and ruling as feudal lords' is the corporations from taking over everything and ruling as feudal lords. Recognize the race-to-the-bottom and create a goverment strong enough to stand against it or be reduced to serfhood. There's a middle ground between 'soviet union' and 'corporations can do anything they like' and if you don't enforce otherwise, you'll end up living in a soviet-tier dystopia ruled by a single absolutist faction anyway.

• Maintain minimal standards of worker pay and safety so that corporations can't compete by lowering them.
• Prevent the formation of and break up preexisting monopolies.
• Tax the successful corporations sufficiently that, though they absolutely can be rewarded with profit for their success, the goverment also has enough money to protect its citizens besides the successful corporate executives.
• Keep corporations from taking people's rights. If you have the money, they can't prevent you from buying their products, they cannot prevent you from using their products how you like once you own it, and they can't refuse to employ you on ideological grounds.
• Treat attempted corruption of the regulating system as what it is, treasonous subversion and persecute it as such by any means necessary.
• Recognize that because of the above, your businesses and the value of your labor cannot compete on equal grounds with foreign businesses and the value of foreign who don't have such self-inflicted limitations. Consequentially, tax said foreign businesses and labor sufficiently to make up the difference if they want to operate in your countries. If you're a large enough potential market, they'll accept it as the cost of doing business with you.

These six steps won't spontaneously transform you into the soviet union, but not executing them essentially will, only instead of an overreaching goverment commanding the entirety of civilization, it'll be an overreaching corporate monopoly.

Look at China, capitalism in which the corporations have been reminded who holds the monopoly of force works. Look at Europe and New Deal-era America, regulations work. For decades, we've practically worshiped corporations in the hope that sufficient faith would cause the wealth to trickle down and the fear that not doing so would lead to soviet-tier despotic dystopia, and in return for our faith, the very corporations themselves attempted to create said dystopia with themselves on top. Fuck them, if you 'traditionalists' want to keep being their Useful Idiots, don't be surprised when they continue taking everything from you. And you want an obvious path to power, stand against them and watch people join your cause as their only opposition since the modern 'left' sure isn't standing against them so long as they buy indulgences from the cult of wokeism by tweeting the occasional rainbow flag version of their company logo.

 

[stevep]

By the time they are obviously necessary, the oil and rare earth ores will have ran out and it won't be possible to build them. Only starting now, when the world still has the material richness, can work.


Counterargument. The inevitable end result of modern 'libertarianism', aka, 'weaken anything that could stop the corporations from taking over everything and ruling as feudal lords' is the corporations from taking over everything and ruling as feudal lords. Recognize the race-to-the-bottom and create a goverment strong enough to stand against it or be reduced to serfhood. There's a middle ground between 'soviet union' and 'corporations can do anything they like' and if you don't enforce otherwise, you'll end up living in a soviet-tier dystopia ruled by a single absolutist faction anyway.

• Maintain minimal standards of worker pay and safety so that corporations can't compete by lowering them.
• Prevent the formation of and break up preexisting monopolies.
• Tax the successful corporations sufficiently that, though they absolutely can be rewarded with profit for their success, the goverment also has enough money to protect its citizens besides the successful corporate executives.
• Keep corporations from taking people's rights. If you have the money, they can't prevent you from buying their products, they cannot prevent you from using their products how you like once you own it, and they can't refuse to employ you on ideological grounds.
• Treat attempted corruption of the regulating system as what it is, treasonous subversion and persecute it as such by any means necessary.
• Recognize that because of the above, your businesses and the value of your labor cannot compete on equal grounds with foreign businesses and the value of foreign who don't have such self-inflicted limitations. Consequentially, tax said foreign businesses and labor sufficiently to make up the difference if they want to operate in your countries. If you're a large enough potential market, they'll accept it as the cost of doing business with you.

These six steps won't spontaneously transform you into the soviet union, but not executing them essentially will, only instead of an overreaching goverment commanding the entirety of civilization, it'll be an overreaching corporate monopoly.

Look at China, capitalism in which the corporations have been reminded who holds the monopoly of force works. Look at Europe and New Deal-era America, regulations work. For decades, we've practically worshiped corporations in the hope that sufficient faith would cause the wealth to trickle down and the fear that not doing so would lead to soviet-tier despotic dystopia, and in return for our faith, the very corporations themselves attempted to create said dystopia with themselves on top. Fuck them, if you 'traditionalists' want to keep being their Useful Idiots, don't be surprised when they continue taking everything from you. And you want an obvious path to power, stand against them and watch people join your cause as their only opposition since the modern 'left' sure isn't standing against them so long as they buy indulgences from the cult of wokeism by tweeting the occasional rainbow flag version of their company logo.

a) Disagree on the 1st part. We have the technology to clear a lot of our current problems already and the potentially fatal crisis when some supplies such as oil running out becomes more likely if we continue to have vested interests blocking change.

b) Your basically stating my argument. "stop thief" That is pretty much the case for a balanced economy and social system I've been supporting for 40+ years. There are idiots on the left who want to go as far as you suggest just as there are plenty on the right who support the current culture of excess power concentration but I find both groups on paths for disaster.

Steve

 

[stevep]

Sweet summer child, large organizations favor limiting rules and regulations because they are corrupt, not to prevent corruption. Regulations create a barrier to entry, they are a tool corruption uses to legitimize gate-keeping.

Trying to make sense of what your saying here?? Regulations can make a barrier to entry but can also remove other barriers. They do - if enforced professionally - stop a lot of the excesses of corporations or groups looking for a quick killing regardless of the costs to others. That's why many big organisations are continually arguing for less/no regulation.

The capitalist method to deal with bad actors is liability. Liability is far more efficient than regulations. With regulations you have to define standards for everything that can cause a harm, and they will often be wrong either due to ignorance or bribery. With liability, you just have to define the harms and reality itself will define the standards for you.

If you can:
a) Identify the problem with the amount of misinformation that such large institutions can generate. Think how long tobacco companies managed to cloud the issue with the harm done by smoking for instance. Same sort of thing has been happening the last few decades with assorted other environmental issues, most noticeably global warming. Still a lot of deniers often funded by those who what the issue left conflicted.
b) Then win a court case against a very large and wealthy group that with modern legal systems can keep you tied up for years if not decades and will cost far more than most people can ever afford.

Both of those assume no corrupt officials or other groups that make bringing corporations to justice for their action even more difficult.

 

[Doomsought]

Trying to make sense of what your saying here??

Regulations do the exact opposite of what you think they do. All of the bribe money being used to create regulations come from megacorperations that want to destroy small businesses. Most regulations create a burden that is impossible for a single person to satisfy the paperwork alone and also run a business.

 

[Aldarion]

Trying to make sense of what your saying here?? Regulations can make a barrier to entry but can also remove other barriers. They do - if enforced professionally - stop a lot of the excesses of corporations or groups looking for a quick killing regardless of the costs to others. That's why many big organisations are continually arguing for less/no regulation.

Problem, however, is that big corporations can circumvent regulations whereas small businesses cannot.

b) Your basically stating my argument. "stop thief" That is pretty much the case for a balanced economy and social system I've been supporting for 40+ years. There are idiots on the left who want to go as far as you suggest just as there are plenty on the right who support the current culture of excess power concentration but I find both groups on paths for disaster.

Thing is, most of the "Right" is, by my standards, leftist. Concentration of power is a path to disaster, no matter what; yet the "Left" supports big state, while the "Right" supports big corporations. But that means that modern Right is actually leftist - the only difference being that the "Left" is supporting state socialism while the "Right" is supporting corporate socialism, but both are socialist!

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Thing is, most of the "Right" is, by my standards, leftist. Concentration of power is a path to disaster, no matter what; yet the "Left" supports big state, while the "Right" supports big corporations. But that means that modern Right is actually leftist - the only difference being that the "Left" is supporting state socialism while the "Right" is supporting corporate socialism, but both are socialist!

Hm? Do you mean as in "Neocons"? Because from my perspective most of those who consider themselves Right wing are violently anti-corporate.

 

[Cherico]

Hm? Do you mean as in "Neocons"? Because from my perspective most of those who consider themselves Right wing are violently anti-corporate.

Thats mostly because corperations decided to knife conservatives in the back.

This was after corperate america being given priority status in conservative politics for over 50 years. Imagine being in a group and working together for decades with a guy. This guy admitedly does a lot but his needs come first year after year after year, and then after he fucked up bad and every one had to bail his ass out he then turns around and stabs you in the back and joins the enemy because you said hey 'your needs are important but maybe some one else should get a turn for a bit'.

Top ten anime betrayls right there, right now corperate america absolutely has to take over the democrats by any means nessary because the alternative is either crawling back to the republicans and absolutely having to grovel or having no allys at all.

 

[Aldarion]

Hm? Do you mean as in "Neocons"? Because from my perspective most of those who consider themselves Right wing are violently anti-corporate.

Neocons, yes. They dominated conservative side of politics from Ronald Reagan to Bush Jr., at the very least.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Neocons, yes. They dominated conservative side of politics from Ronald Reagan to Bush Jr., at the very least.

Ah yes, "conservatives" totally blinded by the dollar signs. Fortunately their power is now seriously slipping in America. The MAGA nationalists have seized control of state level governments and are slowly wresting the GOP from them. Hardly a better time to do it either, as the Republican voter base perceives the neocons as traitors.

 

[Bassoe]

That's mostly because corporations decided to knife conservatives in the back.

They betrayed the voters, not the party. So long as the bribes campaign donations to the party leadership continue to arrive, the corporatists have the party leadership's loyalty.

 

[stevep]

Problem, however, is that big corporations can circumvent regulations whereas small businesses cannot.

If the regulations are complex or the implementer's are corrupt. The problem is without regulation any individual or corporation can do immense damage to those around them.

Thing is, most of the "Right" is, by my standards, leftist. Concentration of power is a path to disaster, no matter what; yet the "Left" supports big state, while the "Right" supports big corporations. But that means that modern Right is actually leftist - the only difference being that the "Left" is supporting state socialism while the "Right" is supporting corporate socialism, but both are socialist!

Which is why I argue for a balanced, mixed economy. I'm to the left of many people on this board simply because the majority are on the right, in some cases very far right. However I oppose excessive corporate power since the 80's just as in the 70's I opposed excessive trade union power - talking about the UK here.

 

[stevep]

Ah yes, "conservatives" totally blinded by the dollar signs. Fortunately their power is now seriously slipping in America. The MAGA nationalists have seized control of state level governments and are slowly wresting the GOP from them. Hardly a better time to do it either, as the Republican voter base perceives the neocons as traitors.

Except that the MAGM 'nationalists' are often manipulated by big business as the last 4 years in the US showed. If your got blind faith in a person or set of vague 'ideas' its very easy for you to be directed by others.

There has been comparison's earlier in this thread of the US with the late republic Rome and some of those match. The MAGM's are similar to desperate peasants increasingly forced off their land in the Roman example and hence are feeling desperate but since the Republicans, like the Senate in Rome, are built around the interests of the very rich how long can the MAGM's be deceived by them? Ultimately it was the plebs not the patriarchs that 'won' in Rome and I don't think in the longer term it will be different in the US if they follow that route. [Possibly showing my bias as a believer in democracy rather than privilege here].

 

[Doomsought]

If the regulations are complex or the implementer's are corrupt. The problem is without regulation any individual or corporation can do immense damage to those around them.

Love Canal argues to the opposite. The Hooker Chemical Corporation did everything in their power to handle toxic waste responsibly, and when the state was going to just steal the land, the Hooker Chemical Corporation cut a deal where they would sell the land on the conditions of a contract that would prevent it from being used in a dangerous way.

Also, it is extremely stupid to build a system under the assumption that the implementer will not be corrupt.

 

[stevep]

Love Canal argues to the opposite. The Hooker Chemical Corporation did everything in their power to handle toxic waste responsibly, and when the state was going to just steal the land, the Hooker Chemical Corporation cut a deal where they would sell the land on the conditions of a contract that would prevent it from being used in a dangerous way.

Also, it is extremely stupid to build a system under the assumption that the implementer will not be corrupt.

The same applies in spades with assuming that an implementer, or any other player will be corrupt and to decide that's nothing to worry about.

The purpose of a system should be to establish clear rules to impede any actions which are would cause unreasonable harm to others so that such a player can't simply say "well there's no rule against it".

 

[Bassoe]

More broadly, I wonder if it’s possible that today’s reigning ideologies would basically be remembered as disparate offshoots of a shared premise—that is, a belief in a utopian “end stage” of history that can be reached via this or that ideology? Yes, I remember you referencing Mohism and how future generations might be similarly baffled when told that people actually took the movements of Modernity seriously. I also imagine that it’s possible that communism, fascism, and liberal democracy are more or less dismissed as products of delusional Whiggish aspirations towards some final ideal that didn’t pan out as planned—despite centuries of promises to the contrary. At that point, perhaps only scholars and dedicated students would give a damn about the distinctions between them, with everyone else blinking in confusion before moving on with their day. They’d also be baffled at how even the less ideological cohorts of Modernity still clung to a notion of continuous progress, with an implicit expectation that the world of 2265 would resemble Star Trek more than Dune. Re-watching archived footage of the former would be a perpetual source of bemusement for denizens of the twenty-second century, I’d think. Whereas studying the latter, while it's still fictional, might convince them that Frank Herbert was on the right track after all.

On a related note, I'm curious what will happen to imperialism. Even today, in a society whose leadership essentially treats 'your ancestors did colonialism' as a secular version of Original Sin, sans the possibility of forgiveness, those very same leaders regularly bomb and invade weaker countries for military-industry complex kickbacks for drumming up business. How's that gonna be interpreted?

• Open imperialists?
• 'Humanitarians' who want every single country to possess local industries sufficient to sustain themselves in the face of an international blockade and a doomsday nuclear arsenal, therefore ensuring nobody can attack them?
• An unironic star trek-style Prime Directive of noninterference of any form, positive or negative, until a certain technological level is met?
• Modern 'feel guilty over your ancestors doing colonialism' quasireligion, but with the miscellaneous attempts to stamp out communism abroad during the cold war and the middle eastern forever war added to colonialism in the list of things to feel guilty about? Any wars taking place at the time on the other hand, are assumed to be righteous.